Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Citizenship

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider legislation to ensure that registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies of persons hostile to the Crown and constitution of the United Kingdom does not take place.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): The new provisions for registration, introduced from 1st January 1973 by the Immigration Act 1971, give me adequate powers to withhold citizenship where I consider this is the proper course. But the Act preserved the entitlement to registration of Commonwealth citizens already settled here prior to that date.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no danger of a repetition of the astonishing case of Mr. Tariq Ali, who has offered favourable consideration from

his organisation to shelter Irish Republican Army bombers and who has admitted without denial that he took the oath of allegiance in bad faith without believing in it? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no registration of Commonwealth citizens of that kind?

Mr. Carr: No. I am satisfied that those who have settled here since the beginning of the new Act can have registration withheld from them at the discretion of the Home Secretary. That was not possible in relation to those settled here before that date. We have, however, put the law right for the future.

Mr. Soref: Is it not a fact that there are 50 terrorist or revolutionary organisations with offices in London? What is being done to prevent further recruitment? Is it not true that there are discussions to bring to this country from Chile 200 Marxist mercenaries who originate in other South American countries which do not want them? Could they not be sent back to Cuba rather than brought to this country?

Mr. Carr: Although those are important matters, they do not arise in relation to the registration of Commonwealth citizens.

Police Allowances (Home Counties)

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the introduction of a Home Counties allowance to help police officers meet the extra cost of living in areas of high housing cost.

Mr. R. Carr: Police pay and allowances are a matter in the first instance for the Police Council and under a standing agreement police officers are entitled to free accommodation or to a rent allowance in lieu. This allowance, which is effectively free of tax, is related to rents and rates in the area and can be increased outside the pay limit.

Mr. Grylls: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the exceptionally high cost of housing in Surrey is a great deterrent to recruitment? It is of great concern that at present we in Surrey are 105 officers or 10 per cent. below establishment. That is worrying a large number of people.

Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed. But I am aware, too, I am glad to say, that the strength of the Surrey force is still rising this year, as it has been in recent years, and I hope that that will continue. Under present arrangements the rent allowance, which is the way of dealing with the problem, has a further eight months to run. It will then be renegotiated in the normal way outside the pay limits.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We welcome the Home Secretary's suggestion that allowances for areas of high cost housing will be considered by the Pay Board. Has he been able to make representations to suggest that next summer is a late date for a report from the board on that matter?

Mr. Carr: As the hon. Lady will understand, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I promised the House last week that, because of the urgency, we would do all we could to urge the Pay Board to produce the report as quickly as possible. I believe that my right hon. Friend has already taken action in that direction.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a symptom of a difficult situation, not only in those areas which have been mentioned but throughout the country, when serious crime is increasing and the police force is below strength? Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can at the earliest possible moment within the limits of stage 3 to see that inducements are given to increase police recruitment?

Mr. Carr: I am glad to say that police recruitment over the whole country is going quite well still. Police strength earlier this year exceeded 100,000 for the first time. I am also glad to say that in 1973, for the first time in many years, crime is on the decline. While we are not in any way complacent about it, I can only assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to give the same high priority to the maintenance of law and order.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the gravity of the manpower situation in the Metropolitan Police force. Will he now say what in his view is the earliest date by

which the Police Federation's claim for a differential increase in pay for London policemen can be settled within the terms of the Government's policy?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is a matter for the Police Council. I can only assure him that, in so far as the Police Council may be dependent on anything I may have to do, I shall do my best to ensure that it is not held up. Meanwhile, I believe that the new London allowance agreed for the metropolitan area, which raises from £10 to £15 the maximum rent allowance, should be of substantial help.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the results of his review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): It is too early to say when the working party which my right hon. Friend has set up to review the scheme will report.

Mrs. Castle: Is not this delay intolerable, since the committee has been sitting for six months? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my constituent, Mrs. Joan Rosina Carroll, formerly Smith, who was severely criminally injured by her husband, is still without a penny of compensation? In view of the intolerable delay, will the Government act administratively, as they have power to do, to remove Section 7 from the scheme?

Mr. Carlisle: I think that the right hon. Lady's talk about intolerable delay is somewhat unreasonable. The scheme has been in existence since 1964 on a non-statutory basis. Any review of it to put it on a statutory basis will be accepted by everyone as being a matter of considerable depth. It was only in April this year that my right hon. Friend announced that a working party was being set up. The working party is under way and has already put out a consultative document inviting the views of various interested bodies on its terms of reference. It must have time to consider the views that it has received.

Criminal Legal Aid Work (Allocation)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the system of allocation of criminal legal aid work by magistrates' courts consequent upon the study made by the Nuffield Foundation's Legal Advice Research Unit in consultation with Mr. Michael Zander, a copy of whose report has been sent to him.

Mr. Carlisle: The method of assignment of solicitors to the minority of applicants for legal aid in criminal proceedings who do not make their own choice is a matter for the justices' clerk concerned, acting under the general direction of the magistrates, to determine. The study referred to has been widely publicised and commented on, and no doubt magistrates and justices' clerks generally are aware of its contents.

Mr. Davis: Having regard to the serious allegations in that report, coupled with the latest generalised and un-substantiated attack by Sir Robert Mark upon a minority of lawyers and upon the jury system, should not a full investigation be carried out by the Home Office in which the police would provide the evidence available to substantiate those allegations? Was Sir Robert Mark's speech read and considered by the Home Secretary before it was delivered?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman starts by asking me about Mr. Michael Zander and ends up by asking me about Sir Robert Mark. I will take the questions in turn. In the article by Mr. Michael Zander certain specific allegations of corruption were mentioned which have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was provided by Sir Robert Mark with the text of his speech before delivery. He was not consulted about the theme chosen, and Sir Robert, during the course of his speech, made it clear that the views he was expressing were his own.

Mr. William Price: Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members share those views?

Mr. Carlisle: Everybody—including Members of this House and others—is entitled to his own views.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: To revert to the original Question, are not the disquieting findings of Mr. Michael Zander an illustration of the difficulty of administering the criminal legal aid scheme in its particular form rather than in the form of the civil legal aid scheme, which means that these cases are considered by a committee of lawyers? Given that criminal legal aid has to be dispensed more quickly, could not this be done by emergency certificate?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are considerable differences between the systems of civil legal aid and criminal legal aid which would make their assimilation difficult. Mr. Zander in his article was dealing with the nomination by the court of solicitors to deal with particular cases where the client himself did not mention a solicitor by name. I do not think that is relevant to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the Law Society.

Remand Home (Women)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the state of progress reached in the provision of a remand home for women in the Midlands.

Mr. Carlisle: The Home Office has recently put to Birmingham Corporation proposals for building a women's remand centre on land opposite Winson Green prison, and is awaiting the corporation's views.

Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is now more than five years since the Home Secretary in the Labour administration, arrogantly ignoring advice from the Magistrates' Association, the police and other interested persons in the Birmingham area, closed the Brockhill remand centre for women? Is he further aware that since then women on remand from the Birmingham courts have had to come all the way down the M1 to be housed in Holloway while on remand? Is the Minister aware that this has cost the taxpayer considerable sums and has also


cost the women concerned a great deal of anguish, distress and inconvenience? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware, too, that only a few weeks ago one such woman flung herself out of the vehicle on to the M1 in the face of oncoming traffic? Does he recognise that there is great urgency in this matter?

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware that it has been extremely difficult to find an alternative site to the Brockhill remand centre which, as my hon. Friend said, was closed by the previous administration in about 1968. We have approached Birmingham Corporation for a site opposite Winson Green prison. We are awaiting the corporation's views, and we are well aware of the importance attached to a new remand centre. Without being able to comment on the individual case referred to by my hon. Friend, I am sure she will be aware that in January of this year the Home Office made arrangements so that there is now overnight accommodation in Birmingham prison for women on remand.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Minister recall that the main reason for closing Brockhill remand centre at that time, which I believe was in 1968, was the difficulty of recruiting staff? Has his Department reconsidered the allocation of housing to women officers on the same basis as that used for men officers? Is he aware that this inequality is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to recruit women to work at remand centres?

Mr. Carlisle: I seem to recall that difficulty of obtaining staff was one of the matters referred to at that time, but I think it was a question of staff living in rather than with their own quarters provided. I shall consider the matter referred to by the hon. Lady.

Probation Hostel (Newcastle-under- Lyme)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now seek an alternative site for a probation hostel in Newcastle-under-Lyme other than that under consideration at Knutton.

Mr. Carlisle: I understand that the probation and after-care committee is already considering an alternative site.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that that news will be welcomed in Knutton, where there is intense opposition to this scheme? Is he further aware that there has been great concern at the thought that an appeal would be made against the borough council's refusal of planning permission, because there is a good alternative site available?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but, as I understand it, the appeal is still being made. The probation and after-care committee found premises which it thought suitable at Knutton and applied for planning permission. Planning permission was refused, and it has appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the decision. In the meantime, the committee has been asked to look for an alternative site.

Shoplifting (Acquittals)

Mr Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of women who pleaded not guilty to shoplifting charges before juries during the latest 12-month period for which records are available was acquitted.

Mr. Carlisle: The latest year for which information is readily available is 1971. In that year, 62 per cent. of female defendants who pleaded not guilty at assizes and quarter sessions in England and Wales to a charge of shoplifting were acquitted.

Mr. Janner: Is not that a very remarkable and sad figure, which shows that far too many people are wrongfully charged with shoplifting? What do the Government propose to do to prevent as far as possible the wrongful prosecution of the innocent?

Mr. Carlisle: With respect, it does not appear to be a remarkable figure. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me the proportion of those who elect to go for trial and who plead not guilty. A fact that he should equally bear in mind is that, of the 47,589 people proceeded against for shoplifting in 1971, 44,251 were found guilty. That is a fairer figure to take than merely the proportion of the much smaller number who go for trial, and I have no reason to think that


there is a greater risk of innocent people being charged in these circumstances than in any other circumstances.

Mr. Fowler: In the Home Office working party on shoplifting, the report of which has just been published, why was no original research commissioned into shoplifters themselves? Is there not a danger of shoplifting being categorised as accidental or done under stress, when the evidence that is available suggests that the great majority of it is deliberate dishonesty?

Mr. Carlisle: The reason why the working party did not look into that was that the working party was set up by the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Crime Prevention and it was dealing with ways of recommending to retailers more effective means of security against shoplifting. I take this opportunity of confirming what my hon. Friend says, namely, that we should all remember that shoplifting is a form of dishonesty just as much as any other form of theft.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would the figures that the Minister has given have been included in the figures and statistics presented by Sir Robert Mark? Does the Minister think that those figures support Sir Robert Mark's assertions or go against them?

Mr. Carlisle: From the fact that the greater includes the lesser, presumably the figure for women acquitted of shoplifting comes within the general overall total. The figure Sir Robert Mark gave of 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. was of those who are acquitted by a jury on trial at quarter sessions and higher courts. I remind hon. Members that 70 per cent. of those who go to a higher court plead guilty. What we are talking about, therefore, is 50 per cent. of the 30 per cent.

Marriages of Convenience

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the extent to which British citizenship by marriage is being offered by advertisements for a financial consideration.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): My

right hon. Friend deplores these advertisements, but he has no reason to think that many marriages of convenience are taking place for the purpose of qualifying the wife for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We shall watch the situation very closely.

Mr. Stoddart: I am glad to hear that the Minister will watch the situation, but would he not agree that advertisements of the sort that have been brought to my attention, in which two guys offer a marriage of convenience for £500 apiece, are obnoxious, insulting to the status of women and, indeed, to the institution of marriage, as well as smacking of male prostitution? Furthermore, will he alter existing legislation to enable the women concerned to remain in this country without having to marry dubious characters? In the meantime, will he redouble his efforts to stamp out this sort of advertisement?

Mr. Lane: Altering the immigration legislation is a much wider question. Of course the advertisements are obnoxious, as I said. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that there has been more than an infinitesimal number of marriages of this sort over the past few years, but if it looks like developing into a serious abuse we shall consider what to do about it.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Is it not a fact that, by my right hon. Friend's rather quaint proposals for anti-discrimination, it will become illegal for anybody to advertise for a partner of the opposite sex?

Mr. Lane: That is a much wider question.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister take an early opportunity of making a strong public statement that if this abuse were to continue—it exists and the Home Office cannot be aware of its full extent—it could have only one result, and that is for this country to terminate the acquisition of British citizenship by reason of marriage? That would be most regrettable.

Mr. Lane: That is a helpful comment. If we have to say something stronger about this matter we will do so. But it would mean changing the law. The House must pause to consider how one would


define a marriage of convenience. We may have to do so, but I merely remind the House that it is not easy.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the un-satisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Ugandan Asians

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals by Ugandan Asian refugees not holding British nationality, but wishing to reside with their families who are domiciled in the United Kingdom, have been allowed during the past year; and how many have been rejected.

Mr. Lane: In the time available it has not been possible to establish how many of the appeals determined during the past year come within the category which the hon. Member has in mind, but the number is likely to be very small. I will write to him when I have further information.

Mr. Whitehead: I acknowledge that in a pre-election year the Government may be sensitive to those who regard even a single successful appeal as evidence of a Communist conspiracy in the Home Office. However, will not the Under-Secretary agree that, in the small number of cases involved, it is fundamentally inhumane and absurd to deny to families domiciled in this country the services and prescence of a breadwinner, often the only member of the family who is not allowed to enter the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lane: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this situation basically derives from the change in the immigration rules made by his right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary in 1969 because the former rules were being abused. In the present situation, in general about one appeal in four is successful—that is, appeals over the whole immigration system; so to that extent the appeal system is working generously towards the people who are appealing.
The hon. Gentleman knows the rules that we are operating in these cases and he knows, too, that we look at all their individual circumstances. There are provisions in Rule 47 concerning cases in

which there is exceptional hardship. Up to the middle of October, 74 husbands had had applications for entry clearances refused and had been given rights to appeal, and I have no doubt that some of them will be exercising those rights.

Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend make clear to the country how effectively the 1971 Act is preventing immigration? Will he bear in mind the correspondence that I have been having with him on this subject?

Mr. Lane: Yes, that is certainly the case; I have corresponded regularly with my hon. Friend. The latest information is that the total figures for Commonwealth immigration in the first half of this year were 25 per cent. down on the same period last year, and this was the lowest rate since control was imposed in 1962.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is no appeal against a decision of the Home Secretary in the exercise of his absolute discretion, and perhaps the Government will consider the machinery for that. May I call to the hon. Gentleman's mind the plight of many spouses, particularly in India and Pakistan, who have waited a long time for decisions from the high commissions and embassies in those countries about their right to come here? The delay is now becoming serious.

Mr. Lane: The final appeal is surely to the House of Commons, where instances when Members think that we have taken a wrong decision, even after appeal, may be brought up. I know that there are delays. The delays result mainly from our determination to operate this control fairly as between one person and another and also, regrettably, from the degree of subterfuge employed by people trying to get round our controls.

Prison Officers

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met representatives of the Prison Officers' Association.

Mr. R. Carr: On 16th October.

Mr. Cox: Is the Home Secretary aware of existing conditions in the prison service? Recruitment is down, there are frequently resignations from the service,


and massive overtime now has to be worked. When will the Minister do something that will start to rebuild the confidence of prison officers that it is a job worth keeping? Many of them do not think so now.

Mr. Carr: I believe that the terms of the pay code for stage 3 will give allowances which will help people working unsocial hours of the sort that prison officers have to work. That possibility, of course, will now come up for review and negotiation under the code. We must wait to see what it does for prison officers, but I hope that it will be of some help, as it is intended to be.
But I do not think that the hon. Gentleman does the case any good by exaggeration.

Mr. Cox: It is not exaggeration.

Mr. Carr: There are almost 2,000 more prison officers in post today than there were when we took office—that is a substantial increase—with 4,000 fewer prisoners. So at least the position has improved substantially, although there is still plenty of room for further improvement.

Mr. Roger White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are anomalies between the prison service and the police and that it is a matter of contention? Will he look into that, too, as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Carr: I cannot add to what I have already said, but we are now due for a new negotiation in the normal course of events for the prison officers. That will take place under the pay code, stage 3, and I hope that the prison officers will find that not unhelpful.

Aerosol Adhesives

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will use his powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 to ban the sale of aerosol adhesives containing the same chemical substances as those which have recently been banned by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Mr. Lane: The production and sale in this country of these aerosol adhesives have already been stopped by the manu-

factures. Further investigations are being made by Home Office medical advisers, among others, and until their outcome is known regulations under the 1961 Act would be premature.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is expert evidence that these products can lead to genetic malformation and that, although these products were banned in the United States last August, and subsequently in the EEC, they have not even been the subject of a national warning here, let alone banned? Whereas manufacturers may have withdrawn supplies, they are on sale and in use in this country. Why do we always seem to be trailing behind instead of blazing the trail with regard to the safety of consumer products?

Mr. Lane: I do not accept that. To use my hon. Friend's phrase, does she not think that we are blazing a trail in many of the ways in which we are protecting consumers? I know the disturbing views that have been expressed, as my hon. Friend said, but I think it right that we should investigate this matter thoroughly, just as it is being investigated in the United States, before we finally decide what steps to take. I take this very seriously indeed, and if necessary we will take action.

Shopping Centres (Fire Safety)

Sir John Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure safety from fire in roofed-over city shopping centres.

Mr. Lane: Fire safety in such premises is secured partly through the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, enforced by the fire authorities, and partly through the Building Regulations, enforced by the building authorities. A code of practice, drawn up by a Home Office working party, was circulated to those authorities for their guidance earlier this year. Research into special problems of fire safety in shopping centres is continuing.

Sir John Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now many new roofed-in shopping centres and that there is a danger from fire in such closed-in areas because smoke is not able to get out very easily?

Mr. Lane: Yes, that is certainly the case. The research we are carrying out at the Fire Research Station is particularly concerned with the control of smoke-spread. I hope that this, and the recent guide, will be very helpful.

Fireworks

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ban the sale of fireworks except under licence for organised displays.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the retail sale of fireworks, except under licence.

Mr. Lane: No, Sir.

Miss Fookes: Would my hon. Friend take the same view if this were a brand-new product being introduced to the market instead of a well-established product with vested interests well entrenched?

Mr. Lane: That is very hypothetical. We must try to keep this in perspective. Last year was a bad year for firework accidents, but, even so, the number has been halved in the last 10 years. This year we took special publicity steps including the help, among others, of the Osmond Brothers to get the message across, and I hope that the figures will be better. If they are not, we shall reconsider the issue.

Mr. Archer: Are not the arguments all one way, since this proposal would save a great deal of suffering whilst sacrificing nothing in entertainment? How many accidents does the Minister consider to be too many?

Mr. Lane: I am certainly not complacent about this. Anyone who reads about accidents, particularly to children's eyes, cannot be complacent. However, we would be depriving many people of reasonable pleasure in sensibly conducted firework parties. Therefore, I suggest that the right answer is to continue publicity and education.

Sir John Hall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of the Government being asked to become far too paternalistic? Is not this on a par with cigarette smoking, for example,

which is probably much more damaging to health than the use of fireworks? Should we ask for cigarettes to be smoked only under licence?

Mr. Lane: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should rely as far as we can on the good sense of the individuals, particularly parents.

Mr. John Fraser: I should not regard the saving of children's lives and preventing injury to them as being paternalistic. In view of the increase that has taken place in the sale of fireworks, will the Department consider licensing shops for the sale of fireworks and raising the age limit at which a child may buy them? At present, although the limit is 14, younger children are able to buy them.

Mr. Lane: I know that these suggestions have been made. I do not rule out further steps being taken if we think that they are necessary. At the moment we do not. The balance of restriction freedom and responsibility is about right.

Motor Vehicles (CD Plates)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his powers over the use of CD plates on motor cars; and in what circumstances these are permitted as part of the equipment of a hire car.

Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no such powers in respect of motor vehicles generally or of hire cars in particular.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that he is the second Minister to whom I have addressed a Question to find out who has any power? As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just expressed concern about accidents to children and has mentioned the assistance received from the Osmond Brothers, may I ask whether he noticed that a child was involved in an accident with a car in which those gentlemen were being driven and that that car was displaying CD plates? Is he further aware that regular users of the vehicles of London Airport private hire conveyors are under the impression that CD plates are given favourable consideration?

Mr. Carlisle: I am glad to say to my hon. Friend that, true to consistency, he received the same answer from my hon.


Friend as he has had from myself. CD plates have no official status in this country and confer no privileges in respect of the vehicles to which they are attached. I agree with my hon. Friend that that should be made clear and known to everyone.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why for three weeks in Great Smith Street, on a yellow line outside Church House, there has been a line of cars bearing CD plates which has congested the traffic on the 88 bus route and has been a nuisance in the area?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the CD plate, which gives no privilege, with the fact that certain people may claim diplomatic immunity from prosecution. The police have exactly the same power to remove a car bearing a CD plate as they have to remove other cars.

Probation Service

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had recently concerning the pay and grading of probation officers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards a return to a single salary scale for main grade probation officers.

Mr. R. Carr: On 26th October the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service agreed on increased salary scales for probation officers with effect from 1st July 1973. The increases, which have been approved by the Pay Board, correspond to those agreed for local authority social workers from the same date, and the necessary amendments to the Probation (Conditions of Service) Rules are being prepared.
The employers' side of the Joint Negotiating Committee is continuing its examination of the A and B salary scales and possible alternatives.

Mr. Mitchell: Can the Home Secretary tell us why delegates walked out of a meeting of the National Association of Probation Officers on 26th October?

Mr. Carr: No, I am afraid I cannot. I am not sure that that is an accurate description of what happened.

Mr. Deedes: In the light of my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether he has seen an official expression of opinion from the probation officers which appeared in The Times about 10 days ago and which virtually attacks the Government for a breach of faith? What comment has he on that?

Mr. Carr: Yes, I saw that allegation and I both regret and reject it. In the lifetime of this Government the full-time strength of the probation service has risen—in round figures—from 3,300 to 4,400. The salary limits have also been raised substantially as a result of the Butterworth Committee and our joint agreement to that. The two scales, A and B, to which so much objection is now taken, were part of that committee's recommendations and were agreed to by the association's representatives. The association is perfectly entitled to change its mind but not to make allegations of bad faith.

Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister realise that this twin scale has become notorious in the association and among probation officers? Does he realise that it is causing embarrassment and jealousy within the service? To try to help smooth the efficiency of this worthwhile organisation, will he do something to get a single scheme for rates of pay?

Mr. Carr: I said that the employers' association was looking into the matter. The House must realise that it is only 18 months since the association's representatives agreed to the scales. The association is justified in changing its mind, but we must have time to look at the question properly.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Home Secretary recall that at the time of the Butterworth Report the National Association of Probation Officers expressed its doubts about it, but subsequently it emerged that only a small number of probation officers had been left behind on scale A? Does he also recall that in answer to a Question of mine shortly before the recess he said that he had some understanding of the difficulty and would look into it himself? Will he


therefore consider it again in view of the disruption that will be caused?

Mr. Carr: I do not want to take back any of the words I used to the hon. Lady, but this is a matter for the joint negotiating committee and the employers are actively looking at it.

Prisoners (Visits)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make in the financial assistance available to relatives to visit prisoners.

Mr. Carlisle: The arrangements for providing financial assistance to relatives for visits to prisoners are under review, but I cannot yet say what the outcome of this may be.

Mr. Lamont: Is it not illogical that the financial assistance given to poor relatives visiting prisoners is not available when a prisoner is being held on remand, which can be for long periods? Will the Home Secretary look into the fact that many prisons do not seem to take this problem seriously and that people who go to a prison to visit a relative often find that he has been moved? Is it not time to make an improvement in the existing arrangements?

Mr. Carlisle: It is right that it does not apply to those on remand; nor is it available to prisoners serving a sentence or three months or less. It is one of the matters being reviewed. On the second matter, if my hon. Friend will let me have details of individual cases I shall certainly look into them.

South African Citizens

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the criteria he uses for the admission of South African citizens to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lane: The admission of South African nationals is governed by the Immigration Rules for control on entry of EEC and other non-Commonwealth nationals.

Mr. Fraser: Can the Under-Secretary tell the House the result of the police investigations into an alleged raid by

South African police spies on the home of Mrs. Astrid Viner? Can he also tell us the extent to which immigration control is used to keep out these insidious South African police spies? Is the control as strict as it is against some ordinary Commonwealth citizens and the citizens of East European countries?

Mr. Lane: My right hon. Friend wrote a few days ago to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) saying that the police had already written to Mrs. Viner inviting her to get in touch with them so that she could help clear up the allegations about this case. On the general point, the hon. Member knows what powers we have under the Immigration Act and the rules to keep out certain individuals whose presence, for instance, is not conducive to public good, and we should not hesitate to use those powers in suitable cases.

Mugging

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mugging offences have been reported in 1973; and what was the comparable figure for 1972.

Mr. R. Carr: There is no agreed definition of "mugging", but the most relevant figures are those for offences of robbery or assault with intent to rob. The number of such offences known to the police in England and Wales in the first six months of 1973 was 3,765; the corresponding figure for 1973 was 4,262. I much welcome this reduction.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware of the astonishing variations in the sentences being imposed by judges—everything from 12 months to 20 years? Are we not entitled to expect consistency from the courts? Is it right that one or two offenders should be picked upon for swingeing sentences as an example to others? If there are to be swingeing sentences, should they not be applied to all offenders?

Mr. Carr: It is a basic principle of our system of justice, as the hon. Member knows, that neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can or should comment on individual sentences, which are at the discretion of the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.

Mr. P. Saint (Order for Costs)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Tom DRIBERG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the Lord Chief Justice's recent direction to courts, he will give urgent consideration to what relief can be given in the case of Mr. P. Saint, of 39 Hurstbourne Gardens, Barking, who, having been found not guilty of an alleged offence, was ordered to pay £100 towards the costs of the prosecution.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall raise on the Adjournment the matter referred to in Question No. 24 if the answer I subsequently receive is not satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an expert on food prices to the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I have said before, I do not intend to appoint to the Central Policy Review Staff members with responsibility for specified subjects.

Mr. Janner: Does not the Prime Minister consider that an exception should be made in the case of food prices because of the continuing scandalous increase which is borne most by those least able to bear it? What does he propose to do to bring some fairness into this branch of the economy?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about the CPRS. The scandalous situation to which he refers is brought about by world supply and demand, and those who need most help—in other words, the pensioners—have been given it.

Miss Joan Hall: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that in households where there have been wage increases averaging, apparently, 45 per cent. since June 1970, and where the housewife does most of

the shopping, the wage increase has been passed on pro rata to the housewife?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a point, but whichever answer I gave would be wrong.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will it be possible for a member of the public or a Member of Parliament to check with the Price Commission whether a manufactured food price has been increased without the permission of the commission?

The Prime Minister: That was dealt with in the debate yesterday. A member of the public can ask a firm for the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Ethiopia.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Ethiopia.

Mr. Whitehead: When the Prime Minister is next in touch with the Ethiopian Government, will he take the opportunity to repeat, at the highest level, the pledges which his right hon. Friend has given about aid to Ethiopia? Will he also repeat that we will provide air transport and Land Rovers to get the aid to the province concerned? Is he aware that there are serious allegations coming out of Ethiopia about the degree to which news of the famine was suppressed and that people who have gone to Wollo Province to try to help have been arrested? When did he first get news of this famine through the embassy in Addis Ababa?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and everyone in the House will agree about the serious situation. Our ambassador, by 12th July, had enough information to recommend a substantial contribution to the relief effort. We thereupon acted immediately with our initial offer for the food-for-work programme. I shall certainly take into account the point made by the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that sufficient transport is available for delivery of all the supplies which we are making available.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been trying to get help to Ethiopia since the summer are satisfied that Her Majesty's Government have met requests from the Ethiopian authorities promptly? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson we have learned from this tragic experience is that there is a pressing need for much more effective early warning procedures and international co-operation in dealing with acute food shortages before the onset of famine? Will he therefore use his influence within the European Community to get action upon these lines?

The Prime Minister: We are prepared to do everything that we can to try to get the earliest possible information. As I have said, we were relying upon the evidence which had been accumulated by our ambassador, and obviously we cannot be responsible for information which is passed by other people. At the same time, it is often a matter of judgment whether food supplies will be sufficient to see a country through or whether it will need substantial assistance. My hon. Friend is right in saying that we ought to do everything possible to foresee difficulties. There is general agreement that the British Government have done everything they possibly can to help.

Mr. Oram: The whole House will support all measures taken to relieve the situation, but is not the long-term lesson to be drawn that prevention is better than cure? Does not this imply that there should be a greatly expanded official aid programme, particularly for the provision of the necessary rural infrastructure, which has been proved to be deplorably absent in Ethiopia?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has great expertise in this matter, that the creation of the necessary rural infrastructure is one of the most important steps we can take to benefit developing countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREATER LONDON COUNCIL

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Leader of the Greater London Council.

The Prime Minister: I have had no official meetings with the present Leader of the GLC.

Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that that is a most disgraceful reply? Six months after the GLC elections, he has still not met the elected Leader of the Greater London Council. Is he not aware that many of the essential services of London—housing, education, transport and key social services—are grinding to a halt as a direct result of the Government's policy? If he is still a London Member, when will he meet the Leader of the GLC and give confidence to the people of London to overcome these problems?

The Prime Minister: If the Leader of the GLC stopped posturing on Westminster Bridge and did his proper job, all of us in London would be the better for it.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend tell the Leader of the GLC, if he makes a request to meet him, that he would be better employed staying at County Hall rather than leading fake political demonstrations without even bothering to use green cards to notify London Members of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that he sent me a green card. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has primary responsibility for many of the services concerned with the GLC, has met the Leader of the GLC, together with leaders of other great cities, and he can deal with these matters.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Since when is walking across a bridge to be construed as posturing? Does the Prime Minister accept that he postures every day outside No. 10 Downing Street?

The Prime Minister: The answer is, when one behaves like the present Leader of the GLC.

Mr. Berry: When my right hon. Friend has such a meeting, will he impress upon the Leader of the GLC his extreme disappointment that the Chairman of the Inner London Education Authority has cancelled this year's Christmas carol service for children in London? Will he tell him that watching a television programme, however trendy, is no substitute for boys and girls taking part in singing Christmas carols?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the strong feeling which exists in many quarters, including the schools, about this matter. It is difficult for me to give an answer because I might be doubly biased—first, because I am interested in carol concerts and, secondly, because I twice defeated the present leader of the ILEA.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT POMPIDOU

Mr. Hooson: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet President Pompidou.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to meet President Pompidou; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for an official meeting with President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister: As the House is aware, I will be meeting President Pompidou at Chequers on 16th and 17th November.

Mr. Hooson: As there is so much concern in this country and in Europe about future defence policy, foreign policy and the future of food and fuel supplies, does the Prime Minister intend to explore with President Pompidou what common ground exists for the development of common policies that might be acceptable to the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister meets Pompidou in a few days, will he seek his advice as to how he managed to impose a freeze on food prices despite the weather and the Common Market regulations? Does the Treaty of Rome apply only to Britain?

The Prime Minister: I shall treat the President of France with the courtesy which the hon. Gentleman denies him. In any case, he does not have to compete with people such as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend seek to encourage the President to accept the latest EEC proposals regarding the reorganisation of the common agricultural policy and point out to him that they are in the interests not only of the people of this country, in that our contribution will be reduced by more than £100 million a

year up to 1978, but of the European consumer?

The Prime Minister: I think that we shall probably have very fruitful discussions about the proposed revisions of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. McBride: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the President of France, will he mention to him the increases in food prices, especially for butter, which, with Her Majesty's Government's agreement, will increase over five years from £357 to £826 a ton? Will the Prime Minister ask M. Pompidou whether it is right that on accession to the EEC we in Britain should pay a tax of £200 per ton on some cheese, approximately £200 a ton on butter and £140 per ton on canned ham? Has not the right hon. Gentleman a duty to protect the British housewife to whom he spoke so wooingly at Leicester?

The Prime Minister: The President of France could challenge the figures given by the hon. Gentleman and point out that we are benefiting from the subsidy on butter from the Community and that we can buy soft wheat in the Community cheaper than anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Sandys: Having regard to the urgent need to strengthen Europe's influence in the world, will the Prime Minister discuss with President Pompidou what steps can be taken to ensure that the timetable for European integration, laid down at the last European summit meeting, is maintained and, if possible, accelerated?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we shall certainly do that. Whereas it had previously been envisaged at the summit meeting in Paris that the next summit meeting would take place in 1976, it will now take place on 14th and 15th December 1973. This is encouraging and shows that events are moving.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN JOURNALISTS

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek an oportunity to address the Association of European Journalists.

The Prime Minister: I shall be addressing the association on 30th November, Sir.

Mr. Rost: When my right hon. Friend addresses the European journalists, will he take the opportunity of sounding them out to find why the reputation of the leadership of the Labour Party in Europe has sunk to an all-time low? Will he find out, too, whether that situation interferes with and aggravates the probability of achieving greater European unity?

The Prime Minister: Of course I can do that, but I suspect that their views will only confirm my own. As the House knows, I have always hoped that both parties would play their part in European development, particularly by sending Members of Parliament to the Strasbourg Parliament.

Mr. John Mendelson: Disregarding for a moment the propaganda use that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) made of his supplementary question, may I ask the Prime Minister, in an attempt to use his time rather more seriously, to say a little more about the recent discussions among some of the NATO allies about the proposal to create a European nuclear command? Will he resist any attempt that might be made in the discussion he is to hold with the President of France or other NATO members to enlarge the sphere of nuclear armament and adhere strictly to the treaty against the spreading of nuclear arms to other countries?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, of course we shall adhere to that treaty. We have signed it and we shall stick to it.

Mr. Thorpe: When the Prime Minister addresses European journalists, will he make it clear to them that he regards the present threat to the oil supplies in Holland, and to a lesser extent in West Germany, as a golden opportunity to prove that we in this country believe in working towards European unity and are prepared to help those and other countries to resist attempts at Arab blackmail?

The Prime Minister: We have shown that we are working towards European unity by working towards a European foreign policy. The first stage of that was in Copenhagen, beginning in September when we settled the relationship we propose between Europe and the United States. The Foreign Ministers have since had further discussions about this matter

and we shall discuss it as Heads of Government in December. This must be the first stage.

Sir F. Bennett: I believe I heard during the last supplementary question mention of West Germany and Holland. I understand that since Portugal has been embargoed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] May I be reminded whether the Prime Minister has had any representations from the benches opposite on the grounds of principle in the supply of fuel to Portugal?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I have not, but in fairness to the Leader of the Liberal Party I must point out that Portugal is not a member of the Community.

Mr. Orme: Will the Prime Minister explain to the European journalists that the British people are more opposed now, in November 1973, than they were in January when he signed the Treaty of Rome?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that. The journalists can form their own judgment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Local Government Bill. Remaining stages of the Channel Tunnel (Initial Finance) Bill.
TUESDAY 13th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill and of the Charlwood and Horley Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Consumer Credit Bill. Motions on the Double Taxation Relief Orders for Belize, Brunei, Sweden and Barbados.
THURSDAY 15th NOVEMBER. Supply (1st Allotted Day); until Seven o'clock, debate on an Opposition motion on the disastrous shortages in public services in Greater London, and afterwards an


Opposition motion on museum charges. Motion relating to the Direct Grant Schools (Amendment) Regulations.
FRIDAY 16th NOVEMBER. Second Reading of the Horticulture (Special Payments) Bill. Motion on the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations.
MONDAY 19th NOVEMBER. Supply (2nd Allotted Day): Subject for debate to be announced.

Mr. Wilson: In regard to Thursday's business following the cheap and frivolous replies of the Prime Minister on Question No. Q3 about London, may I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that we are today tabling a motion censuring the Government for the fact that their policies are bringing essential public services in London to a virtual standstill?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we can expect a debate on Northern Ireland shortly after the House has dealt with the business which he has read out?
Thirdly, will lie arrange in Government time for a half day's debate—a full day if he can afford the time—before 30th November, which is the last date for receiving representations on the recent Green Paper on the question of discrimination? [HON. MEMBERS: "Against what."] The Green Paper on discrimination against women, of course.
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to providing Government time for a debate on the question of disabled drivers and the kind of vehicles they have available to them, since we now understand from the Secretary of State for the Social Services that he has received the report of Baroness Sharp and her Committee? It would be extremely helpful if the House could have a debate on that subject, a subject in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House are expert and on which they will want to express their views before the Government take a decision on the Sharp Report.

Mr. Prior: I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said about the Opposition motion on Thursday.
I hope to be able to include in my next week's business statement the

announcement of a debate on Northern Ireland.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about discrimination against women. There were opportunities during the debate on the Address to discuss that subject and there will be a chance to air views when we proceed with the Bill. At the moment I see little prospect of being able to arrange a debate before the end of November, but this is a subject which hon. Members successful in the ballot could select.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about disabled drivers and the report of the Sharp Committee. I recognise that this is a subject which the House will wish to debate. I should like to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I have noted that the House wishes to debate this important matter.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply about the Green Paper on discrimination is not good enough? I ask him to think again about it, and I remind him that facilities which were provided in the debates on the Gracious Speech were as a result of our own choosing. But there were many hon. Members on that day and on other days who felt that it was right to speak on other aspects of the Gracious Speech.
Is the Leader of the House aware that if the Government propose to go forward with a bill based on the Green Paper, it will exclude many of the principal issues on which legislation is needed on discrimination, including education, work and many other questions? Since during the debates on the Gracious Speech I promised that the right hon. Gentleman would receive a copy of Labour's Green Paper on this matter, and since I know that it has reached his office, may I ask him to study that excellent document before deciding not to grant time for a debate?

Mr. Prior: I shall certainly give further consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. McMaster: Since the House has been back at work for four weeks following the Summer Recess, may I press my right hon. Friend to provide time for an urgent debate on Northern Ireland? I say this in view of the continuing critical


security situation, particularly in my constituency, where there are nightly incidents, including murders, and also because of the many political developments that deserve the attention of this House.

Mr. Prior: I have just said that I hope to be able to make an announcement about Northern Ireland in next week's business statement.

Mr. James Johnson: May I turn the right hon. Gentleman's attention—and I see the Prime Minister at his side—to the Icelandic fishing situation? Unfortunately, my Question No. Q17 on this subject was not reached today. What is happening in Reykjavik? Are we now at the stage where we shall have to haggle over a definitive list of ships which are to fish in these waters? Is that a fact, and has the Prime Minister had any official communication that Mr. Johannesson is in difficulties against Mr. Josepsson, the Fisheries Minister, and that it is likely that the Icelandic Cabinet will be dissolved? Will the Leader of the House tell the House the situation, because this keenly affects my constituents as well as many others in Fleetwood, Lowestoft and other fishing areas?

Mr. Prior: I note the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. We are awaiting the decision of the Icelandic Government. I believe I saw on the tape a short time ago that there was a likelihood of an early decision. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will report to the House as soon as a decision is reached.

Mr. Powell: Will the Leader of the House provide an early and full opportunity for the House to debate the recent important report by the Select Committee on Immigration?

Mr. Prior: I should like to consider that matter.

Mr. Palmer: Will the Leader of the House arrange soon for a debate on the Government decision to use American reactors for the next stage of the British nuclear power programme? Could not this debate centre on the recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which advised against that course of action?

Mr. Prior: No decision of any sort has been reached on this important matter. The Nuclear Power Advisory Board is urgently considering the issue under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Government's reply to the second report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology will be made shortly, and it will be best to await that before considering time for a debate.

Mr. Neave: Reverting to the question of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many of us on this side of the House who are extremely anxious about the possibility of ordering American reactors, which we would consider a devastating blow to British industry and to the Atomic Energy Authority? Will my right hon. Friend seriously reconsider his statement that there should not be a debate on the Committee's report?

Mr. Prior: I repeat what I have already said to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer)—that no decision has been reached. My right hon. Friend chairs the Nuclear Power Advisory Board. Decisions will be taken in the light of its advice to the Government and I will keep the House informed, or will ask my right hon. Friend to keep the House informed.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Can the Leader of the House give us any indication when we may expect the Government's Green Paper on worker participation in industry, which was promised in June? Will he guarantee that when the paper is published there will be an early opportunity to debate it? Further, can he tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumour which is circulating that the paper has been written once but has been rejected by the Government's "Think Tank" and is now being rewritten?

Mr. Prior: There is certainly no truth in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Green Paper is nearing completion and, of course, I expect that the House will wish to debate it after it has had proper time for consideration.

Mr. Ronald Bell: In considering how soon he can find a day for a debate on the recent report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that


since the passing of the 1971 Act the House has lost its annual opportunity of debating the subject of immigration, and that unless an opportunity such as this is taken we shall have no debate upon the subject?

Mr. Prior: I recognise the point which my hon. and learned Friend makes.

Mr. Oram: May I ask whether it is next week that the House is to expect the promised statement on population policy? Also, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind not only his promise that such a statement would be made in the autumn, but the fact that United Nations Population Year begins on 1st January and that many people want to know the Government's policies in respect of that event?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised a statement this autumn. I know that the autumn is getting well on, and I will ask my right hon. Friend when he can make that statement.

Sir J. Rodgers: May I ask my right hon. Friend to realise that we on this side of the House would like an early debate on the question of the education of immigrants?

Mr. Prior: I have noted the point which my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that the desire to debate the Select Committee's report on education is by no means confined to the other side of the House, because we would very much welcome such a debate. Also, may we have a debate on one aspect of the previous report, concerning police-immigrant relationships?

Mr. Prior: I should like to remind the House that we have a number of days set aside for debates on reports of Select Committees. I am not quite certain when the first day will be available, but I will make a note of the strong views expressed this afternoon.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Opposition have chosen public services in London as the subject for one of their supply days next week. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to persuade them to make the subject public services in

London and Peterborough, because, as a consequence of the decision when they were in Government to prevail upon Peterborough to be a good neighbour to London by accepting the new town procedure, the public services of Peterborough may well be detrimentally affected? That is an omission which ought to be rectified.

Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that the Opposition have taken due note of my hon. Friend's problem.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that for nearly 12 months I have repeatedly asked questions about a debate on industrial health and safety, and will he recognise that the Roberts Report is a major document with far-reaching consequences? Will he consider lending a rather more sympathetic ear, and can he assure me that, before the Government's proposals on health and safety at work are drafted and put into a Bill, the House will have a full opportunity to debate them?

Mr. Prior: There was time last Session for a short debate—and I agree that it was a short debate—on this matter. I think it is now of great importance that the Robens recommendations should be put into the form of a Bill which can be put through the House this Session, and that will provide an opportunity for discussion and for amendment wherever necessary. If I were to say now to the hon. Gentleman that we could have a debate before the Bill was drafted, I doubt whether we should get the Bill this Session, and I think it is important that we should get it.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: Will the Leader of the House kindly give time for a full debate on the European Regional Development Fund, and on the implications that it will have for our own regional policy?

Mr. Prior: I have undertaken to the House that we shall have a debate on the regional fund before decisions are taken in Brussels at the beginning of December. I hope that it will be possible to widen the debate a little to include other matters of European interest.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can the Leader of the House give us an indication when he expects to make a statement on the


salaries and conditions of secretaries to Members of Parliament? As he well knows, these have been the subject of considerable criticism in the Press recently. Does he not think it about time that the Government themselves took the whole matter over?

Mr. Prior: I had something to say about this matter last Tuesday night, and I have nothing to add at the moment.

Mr. Evelyn King: Reverting to electricity generation, am I correct in understanding that my right hon. Friend gave an assurance—and, if he did not, will he give an assurance—that no American generators will be bought until there has been a debate? In that context, is he aware that there has been developed at Winfrith in Dorset a heavy water generator which is clearly more efficient and cheaper than anything that America has produced?

Mr. Prior: What I told the House this afternoon is that no decision has been taken on thermal reactor choice. I think I will ask my right hon. Friend to contact my hon. Friend on any further points that he has in mind.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Leader of the House seen the report of the decision in the High Court affecting the pay of employees of Co-operative laundries, and will he arrange for a ministerial statement next week on the implications of that decision? Is it not utterly deplorable that the Pay Board should have been instrumental in stopping a meagre pay increase of 10p a week for some of the lowest paid people in this country?

Mr. Prior: These are matters for my right hon. Friend and I will draw his attention to them.

Mr. Adam Butler: Further to the question of nuclear reactors, will my right hon. Friend agree that these are part of a much wider subject, and may I urge on him very strongly that we should have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the whole energy question?

Mr. Prior: Of course this is a matter of very great importance to all parts of the House. We are in difficulties over general debates in the period leading up to Christmas, but I shall, of course, bear this one in mind.

Mr. Booth: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we may expect a statement in the House next week concerning the EEC's proposals on regulations to define those areas in this country which will be eligible for aid under the European Regional Development Fund? Also, can the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that no regulations for this purpose will take legal effect in this country until there has been a debate in the House?

Mr. Prior: I have already given an undertaking to the House that there will be a debate on this matter ahead of any further negotiations and decisions in Brussels. That will give the opportunity which the hon. Gentleman requires.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement following the debate last Session on the Quirk Report? There were 2,000 speech therapists when that report was made, but in this morning's copy of The Times it is suggested that there are now only 910. This problem becomes a greater worry every day, and is this not an example where the Government must put rules on one side and deal with the problem?

Mr. Prior: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that legislation will be introduced early on the question of discrimination? I use the word "early" because I am sure he knows that, in our view, the consultative document is extremely limited and that consequent legislation proposed by the Government will probably require very drastic amendment.

Mr. Prior: As the consultative period does not end until the end of November, it will be some while before the Bill can be drafted, but I will bear in mind what has been said.

Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is almost 18 months since the Criminal Law Revision Committee reported, making important proposals affecting criminal trials in this country? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that in the recent important speech by Sir Robert Mark, Commissioner of the


Metropolitan Police, he made many of the same points? Is it not a matter of urgency that the House should be allowed to debate the proposals?

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend that this matter must be debated. I gave an undertaking that it would be debated, but I am afraid I cannot promise a debate for a few weeks.

Mr. Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House taken note of Early Day Motion No. 23 in my name and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the Father of the House, which seeks to say "Thank you" to the back room boys and girls in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the successful conference held in September?
[That this House wishes to place on record its deep appreciation of the organisation and hard work of the officers and stall of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Sir Robin Vanderfelt and his stall and Mr. Peter Molloy and all those serving the United Kingdom branch, including officers of the House who gave freely of their time, which led to the outstanding success of the 19111 Annual Conference in London in September 1973 and reflected great credit on the mother of Parliaments.]
Although it is obviously not a subject for debate next week, will the right hon. Gentleman find ways and means of securing time for Her Majesty's Government to associate themselves with those thanks to the officers and staff of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association?

Mr. Prior: I am sure the whole House would wish to associate itself with this motion. We are all extremely grateful for the hard work which Mr. Molloy and others carried out in order to make the conference the success which it undoubtedly was. I am certain that we all wish to congratulate those who took part,

Mr. Normanton: Would my right hon. Friend care to take note of the growing concern in the Greater Manchester conurbation at the prospects of the deferment, or still further deferment, of the SELNEC Pic-Vic tunnel project? In view of the concern of the region and of hon. Members in all quarters of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the possibility of finding some time for a debate on this matter?

Mr. Prior: I know that there is a great deal of concern in the Greater Manchester area on this subject, but I cannot promise time for an early debate on it. It is a matter which might suitably be raised by hon. Members if they get a chance. All I can say is that with the need to contain and control public expenditure very strictly at the moment, I am sorry, but this has had to drop out of the programme.

Mr. Hamling: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill is not contentious from a party point of view, and would he discuss through the usual channels the possibility of the House being given an opportunity of a free vote on this important matter?

Mr. Prior: These are not matters for me, but no doubt what the hon. Gentleman said will be borne in mind by those whose responsibility it is.

Mr. John Wells: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 10 which expresses the anxiety of many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the position of professional engineers—perfectly reputable non-chartered engineers—who may well suffer as a result of European rulings?
[That this House, mindful of the fact that from 31st December 1973 the right of many thousands of qualified engineers to practise in the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community will be in jeopardy, urges Her Majesty's Government to seek an urgent settlement between the Council of Engineering Institutions and the many known non-chartered bodies such as the Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers.]
We have heard this afternoon an expression of the desire to speed up integration with Europe. Matters such as this which are already urgent should be reviewed even more urgently.

Mr. Prior: I will have a further look at that, but at the moment I cannot add to what my hon. Friend said on 22nd October.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have now published their findings on the Scottish Select Committee Report on Land Use. Is the right hon. Gentleman ensuring that this is one of those reports which are to be debated in the near future?

Mr. Prior: I shall obviously have a good many demands for debates on Select Committee reports. There is a certain amount of time available for debate of such reports, but I am afraid that I cannot at this stage promise which Select Committee reports will be debated. I have had requests this afternoon for at least two. We shall have to see how we get on.

Mr. Marten: On the question of the day which my right hon. Friend has promised for a debate on European regional policy, am I right in assuming that he also wants to add some other matters into that same debate? Is he aware that since the debate on the Queen's Speech we have received the agenda for the Council of Ministers' meeting and that it contains extremely important matters, each one of which ought to be given at least a half day, if not a whole day?

Mr. Prior: We have just had six days of general debates on the Queen's Speech. There are a number of important matters. One of the things that I had in mind when I said that it might be possible to debate other matters at the same time was that I thought that hon. Members would want to raise matters other than those of regional policy. I have made a note of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May we have an assurance that we shall have an opportunity of debating the Government's new housing improvements proposals under the new Bill within the next fortnight or three weeks, in view of the anxiety among local authorities about this matter?

Mr. Prior: These are matters which will be in the Bill, and the Bill will be brought before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Moate: Will my right hon. Friend say when we may expect the Government to seek the approval of the House for their White Paper on metrication?

Mr. Prior: One or two matters relating to metrication have already been before the House. I have nothing to add to the statement which was made in the debate at the end of last Session.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept congratulations from myself and from a number of other mem-

bers of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the prompt manner in which the committee has been reappointed on this occasion? May we take it that this represents an end of the policy of months of delay before Select Committees of this importance are reappointed?

Mr. Prior: I am always glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support.

BILLS PRESENTED

STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Sir John Eden, Mr. Tom Boardman, and Mr. John Nott, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision for compensating certain statutory corporations in respect of financial loss due to compliance with the national policy relating to limitation of prices, and for extending the borrowing powers of certain statutory corporations; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, presented a Bill to provide, as respects Scotland, for the imposition of limitations on newly created feuduties and other perpetual payments from land; for limitations on the residential use of property subject to long lease and other rights of occupancy; for the variation of standard securities in the event of residential use of the security subjects; for restrictions on certain rights of reversion, redemption and preemption; for the abolition of the right to create leasehold casualties; for the recognition of interposed leases; for amendment of the law relating to registration of leases; for the abolition of the registration and recording of documents in the Office of Chancery; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

CHANNEL TUNNEL (INITIAL FINANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House had a very full debate on the principle of the Channel Tunnel when it approved the White Paper less than two weeks ago. We shall have further opportunities over the next few months to debate the detailed arrangements for the financing, construction and operation of the tunnel which will be set out in a major hybrid Bill which we hope to present to Parliament later this month. I do not want today to traverse all the ground which has been or will be covered in these debates.
This Bill has a limited purpose—to enable the project to go forward to the next stage, referred to in the Bill as the "initial period", but more generally as phase 2. This will be inaugurated by the signature of an Anglo-French Treaty and a main agreement, Agreement No. 2, which will govern the project as a whole, and will cover final design and preliminary works including the construction of sloping access tunnels leading to the sites in Britain and France from which the tunnels will be bored, and the boring of about two kilometres of the service tunnel from each side.
This will enable us not only to take the project to the point where full-scale work could start early in phase 3 but also to confirm the conditions to be encountered underground and such key matters as the rate of progress of the tunnelling machines in practice, and hence the forecast cost of the project, before final commitment to the main works. During this phase, the traffic and revenue forecasts will be kept under study. Towards the end of the period it will be necessary to review the terms on which the main capital has to be raised, as was explained in Chapter 11 of the White Paper, and phase 2 will conclude with the signature of a supplementary agreement No. 3, after which—assuming all goes well—the bulk of the money will be raised and the main construction started.
The Bill provides the financial powers needed to enable British Ministers to carry out the obligations in respect of phase 2 which they would incur on the signature of Agreement No. 2. These are within the general framework of the arrangements for the dual partnerships between Britain and France and between the Governments and the private interests represented by the British and French Channel Tunnel companies, which are described in Chapter 11 of the White Paper. They are, however, limited in scale and time, and differ in certain respects from the arrangements proposed for the main works.
The key features of the arrangements for financing the project during phase 2, which are reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill, are as follows.
Firstly, the work to be undertaken during the initial period is expected to cost some £30 million. The private interests expect to raise £8 million of this as risk capital, and the rest with Government guarantees. Since £2·6 million of the £5·4 million forecast cost of phase 1 was raised as risk capital, this means that by the end of phase 2, 30 per cent. of the total expenditure on the project to that point should have been met by risk capital. It will be necessary also during this period to refinance the guaranteed funds raised during phase 1.
Second, there may be some expense to be incurred by the Secretary of State himself for any further studies. It may prove desirable for certain further studies to be carried out about aspects of the project, or from points of view which, while of direct concern to the British Government, could not legitimately be considered to be the responsibility of the project as a whole. Examples of such studies carried out during phase 1 are the United Kingdom transport cost-benefit study, the study of the economic and social implications for Kent, and the current assessments of the noise which might be generated by the tunnel installations combined with the M20 motorway. These latter will certainly require review as the design of protective works and the installations as a whole progress.
Third, there could be obligations arising if the project were abandoned during phase 2. The extent of these would


depend on the circumstances of the abandonment. If this were by mutual agreement or following notice by the private interests, the only obligations resting on the Governments would be to meet their guarantees, coupled with certain buy-back provisions should they wish to proceed with the project separately. If, however, the Governments wish to opt out or are unable to go ahead for any reason, while the companies are willing to proceed with the project, then provisions broadly reproducing those of Agreement No. 1 would operate. The effect would be that the Governments would be obliged to purchase the companies' interests at a price in excess of their cost, on a basis which takes account of the length of time the companies have had their money at risk and their loss of expectation of future profits.
In addition, as paragraph 11.21 of the White Paper explains, certain provisions have been agreed which would have the effect of partially compensating the private investors if it proved impossible to agree in 1975 on the terms for raising the main capital because the Governments and companies could not agree on the forecasts of future revenues.
Fourth—a point which is implicit but not explicit in the Bill—all the obligations arising under the guarantees, whether given by one Government or jointly, will be shared 50—50. So will any costs arising from an abandonment, however caused. This will be enshrined in the treaty and, to cover the period before that can be ratified, in an exchange of letters which will be signed at that time.
Those are the obligations which may be incurred during the initial period. I turn now to Clause 1. Subsection (1) provides the power to provide the guarantees and make the payments which are necessary to meet them. Subsection (2) sets a limit of £30 million on the guarantees which may be given, with a power to raise the limit to £35 million by order, which, under subsection (7), would be subject to affirmative resolution of this House.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): I am not sure that I have read the relevant passage correctly, and I should like to be clear. Is it only the excess of £5 million over the £30 million for which the order is required?

Mr. Speed: That is correct. The limit to which I have referred is high enough to cover the obligations of both the Governments, as it may well be most appropriate for some or all of the money to be guaranteed by both jointly. However, as I have already explained, all obligations will be shared jointly by the two Governments. Therefore, if Her Majesty's Government paid out less than half the total sum due, we should have to reimburse the French Government, and provision for this is made in subsection (3). Conversely, if we had paid out more than half, we should be reimbursed by the French, and the sums received would, under subsection (4), be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
There is one other provision to which I shall draw the attention of the House. Under Clause 2(1) "the initial period"—these powers relate only to that period—is defined as running to 1st July 1975. I expect that well before that date the Hybrid Bill providing the full powers required for the project will have been passed and by that date Agreement No. 3 will have been signed and the project will have passed into phase 3. In case all our expectations are falsified, however, provision is being made for the period to be extended. Hon. Members will, no doubt, have noticed that the date is different from that in the draft clauses published in the White Paper. This is because the timetable has been reassessed following the deferment of the start of phase 2 to mid-November.
The Bill will enable us to make progress with this major project. In itself, however, it is a limited if important measure. Its passage is now urgent. As my right hon. Friend explained on 25th October, it was deferred to the new Session because we felt that it would be for the convenience of the House if consideration of it were separated from the debate on the general principle. I am sure that that was right. If it is not passed, the project as now conceived may well collapse. The passing of it, however, is not an irrevocable step, as Chapter 12 of the White Paper makes clear.
It has taken us seven years to reach this point on the basis of the agreements reached by the Labour Government in 1966. I hesitate to think how long it would take to put together a new scheme. Indeed, I suspect that our


grandchildren could well be continuing to debate it 30 years hence, and that is not a prospect which I find attractive.
I commend this limited but important Bill to the House.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: As the Minister said, today's debate follows naturally and directly from our debate on 25th October, when we considered the White Paper and the full details of the scheme proposed by the Government, and I accept that, to give effect to the next stage as set out in the White Paper, the Government are bound to ask the House for the Bill now before us.
However, for the reasons which were so cogently put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) on 25th October—hon. Members will be glad to know that I shall not spell them out at length now—the Opposition do not completely go along with the scheme in the White Paper, and the House will not, therefore, be surprised to learn that we are not able to agree to the passing of the Bill, which, in effect, would give a second endorsement to the decision to which we objected on that occasion.
Our objections, in essence, are two. The first arises sharply on this Bill. We do not see the need for the generous provision proposed by way of guarantee and division of profits as they accrue to the private sector as distinct from the public sector. I shall not quote from the various financial columns of the newspapers commenting on the White Paper and the Government's estimates of how the scheme should work out, but I remind the House that with one voice they said that the projected returns were amazingly high, and in almost every case they said that, if the scheme is to produce that level of results, there should be no need for private capital to seek the kind of guarantees and terms which the Government are offering.
That being the case, we are in a dilemma. Either the Government estimates are wrong and the Government do not believe they will be borne out or the private capital will have a quite unreasonable share of the benefits and revenues that are expected to accrue. The Government cannot have it both

ways. The difficult question to which they have not yet given an answer is whether, as may well be the case, they can get the participation of private capital only on these terms and with these guarantees. We have been given very little information and we have had very little time to discuss these issues in the House. If the people with whom the discussions and negotiations have taken place, the hard-headed business syndicates and the banks that they have gone to for the capital, are suspicious of the Government's figures and are doubtful that the results will be as the White Paper suggests, why should we accept what the Government tell us? That is the question that has not been answered.
Maybe in the calm of today we shall get an answer to this question. Are we to accept the estimates put forward as adequate forecasts—at least as much as any estimates can be adequate—or should we share the reservations of the private capital that has been involved in the negotiations. The people behind the capital say that the project is so risky, the prospect of return so doubtful, that they can go ahead only if, on the one hand, a great part of the money is guaranteed by the Government and, on the other, if the actual breakdown of surplus and revenue is in accordance with the White Paper.
The Bill is completely central to this argument because without the guarantees, as I understand it, at this stage in phase 2 the whole complicated structure of the financing of the tunnel would collapse. We are therefore entitled to know the Government's view about that and whether, as the scheme and the further studies go forward and the Government eventually convince themselves about the validity of their estimates and are satisfied that there will be a lot of profit in the scheme, there is the prospect of an adjustment in favour of the taxpayer and against those who contribute the private capital.
The second fundamental doubt we have about the tunnel is the difference between the ministerial speeches commending it and the small print of the White Paper. That is the difference between the benefit for British Railways on the one hand and whether, as the White Paper says, it will be, in effect, a rolling motorway with the railway content, apart from the actual


conveyance of vehicles through the tunnel, not materially significant in the total volume of passenger or freight traffic.
I asked two questions in this connection in the last debate and no answers were given. Again, perhaps in the relative calm of today we might have those answers. They are very important for many of us in assessing what we see as the main attraction of the tunnel—the benefit it will bring to British Railways as distinct from the enormous congestion and environmental damage caused by the mounting level of road traffic, both private and commercial. So we want to know first, whether the Government are to provide funds for the new line, which they have approved, from the tunnel to London in the same way as funds are being provided for other aspects of the project, or whether British Railways will have to find the money themselves. If so, will it be deducted from the total investment programme that British Railways need in any event if they are to remain viable and efficient?
It could be that the question will be answered when we at last see, as we are assured from week to week that we shall, the Government's proposals for the future of the railways. We get little snippets of information. It is becoming like a serial story. The Under-Secretary was flapping his skirts again this week saying that all would be revealed by his right hon. Friend towards the end of the month. I think that is what he said. But we have been hearing that kind of message for a year. I hope there is some substance to this theatrical performance and that we shall get to Act 1 and find out what is going on. However, the hard fact is that the value of the project to British Railways is a most important aspect in our current discussions. British Railways are not in an attractive position when they have to raise money themselves for new investment. Will the Government treat this as a special case and pay for the new route?
The other aspect which for many of us is extremely attractive is the possibility of direct passenger and freight trains from all parts of the United Kingdom without the need, as in the case of freightliners, for a changeover because of gauge problems. It is an attractive prospect

that goods loaded on the railways at Sheffield can go direct to any part of Europe. I realise that substantial expenditure will be incurred by British Railways if continental trains are to be able to use these lines.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I have already made clear in the previous debate that the £120 million investment required for the link between the Channel coast and London will be provided separately by the Government and not out of ordinary railway investment. Secondly, it is already clear that British Rail traffic will be free to go all over the Continent. There is no question about that. It will be able to come back here. There will be certain difficulties for continental traffic going beyond London, and that is understood by the European railways.

Mr. Mulley: That is most illuminating. I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that when he replied to our last debate. He did not mention securing the understanding of European railways that they would be unable to go beyond London, and he did not say that they would be content for their traffic to travel, for example, from Italy to Sheffield carried by British Rail. Obviously, the great attraction of the scheme would be removed if freight had to be unloaded in London and transferred from one railway system to another, as I imagined would need to be the case.
We must get this absolutely clear. In the fulness of time it may be desirable for some railway tunnels to be improved, for some permanent way to be replaced and for bridges to be widened and signals removed in order to accommodate continental rail traffic. British Railways cannot be expected to do this in addition to their normal enormous commitments necessary to maintain an efficient and viable system. Now we have the Government's assurance that all the necessary railway investment consequent upon the tunnel will be met by the Exchequer.
That is very good news, and if the right hon. Gentleman had told us that a fortnight ago we should have been much happier. He did not say anything like that, that all British Rail expenditure arising from and in connection with the tunnel would be found for it by the


Exchequer by way of grant. That is important. I congratulate the Government on having done it. It removes part of our difficulty about British Rail, which still worried us, because the whole financial structure set out in the White Paper is based on the major revenues coming from rail traffic.
In the Opposition's view, the White Paper, which the House has accepted, makes excessive provision for the private capital participating in the proposed scheme. We are in rather unusual company in sharing the view of many financial commentators, including the Economist, that there should be no need in the circumstances for the kind of guarantees proposed in the White Paper, the first of which is before the House. For those reasons I advise my right hon. Friends to vote against the Bill.

4.21 p.m.

Sir Richard Thompson: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State reminded us, the Bill is about money. I think he hopes that the subsequent discussion can be restricted purely to that aspect of the matter, but it is an old principle of the House that we must have redress of grievance before grant of supply, and if we are to provide the £30 million that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries wants in order to carry out the next stage of his preparations for the tunnel, certain questions that have not so far been answered must be answered.
There is no doubt that although theoretically, after we have spent the money on the trial borings and all the rest, we can still think again and decide not to go ahead with the tunnel, in practice the fact that we embark on the spending of those funds will pre-empt the rest of the programme. As time goes on we shall increasingly hear the argument, "We have spent all this money on the preliminary arrangements, the test borings, and so on. We must not spoil the ship for a ha'porth"—some ha'porth?—"of tar. We must now go ahead to the end."
Some hon Members are very familiar with such accumulator processes. Some of us who sit on the Public Accounts Committee will remember, for example, examining the situation that arose over the financing of Concorde. We were told that that we were on the frontiers of tech-

nology, and nobody knew what Concorde would cost. Nobody could challenge the figures. The Channel Tunnel is not a parallel case. It is not on the frontiers of technology but is nineteenth-century technology, boring a tunnel and running trains through it. Therefore, perhaps we shall not fall into the same error.
But if we pass the Bill tonight we shall have committed ourselves effectively to the whole of the expenditure and all the environmental upset and everything else that the tunnel entails. If that is what the House wants, we should have an answer to one or two questions I have already raised, which are very important to my constituents and other people affected by the proposed high-speed railway.
When my right hon. Friend wound up the previous debate on the tunnel, I asked him to answer certain points that had not been raised in the debate by other hon. Members. He was unable to do so. When the line leaves London, it emerges in South Croydon and runs in the open for some miles before re-entering a tunnel at Woldingham. Some of my constituents have a number of houses and properties along that route which are now wholly blighted. They could not sell them in the market for what those properties should command, or for anything like it.
I know perfectly well that with the effluxion of time British Rail will in due course produce a Bill, and notices to treat will be served. I dare say that fair compensation will be agreed. But it is a long process. In the meantime, my unfortunate constituents see the value of their principal investment in life, their house and home, blighted at a time when everything is very expensive.
Not all of them will be alive at the end of the process. Some will have died, and it will have been found that the value of the principal asset in their estate has been cut to ribbons. Some may wish to sell their properties, or may have to sell. What will happen to them? Will proper regard be paid to the value of their property at the time when the proposals became known? Anything else would be grossly unfair. Their properties have been depreciated because of the threat, and they should be compensated for it. That is only fair.
Compared with all the fuss about running a motorway through London, the


fuss that will be created in South Croydon if the route is carved through it without proper arrangements in advance is fearful to contemplate. I ask my right hon. Friend to say now that British Rail will be human and understanding and will make a statement on the matter so that my constituents' minds may be set at rest.
What will British Rail do in places where it is not possible to build a tunnel—through the countryside, near villages, small towns and settlements, where the trains will scream through at 150 mph at frequent intervals in both directions—to shield people from the effects of the noise and blast? In the White Paper there are cosy references to landscaping, screening, the building of rail embankments and so on. It all sounds fine, but it will need to be spelt out in detail before people who now live in peace and reasonable quiet in the countryside can contemplate what is proposed. They will not be comforted by the thought that a generous Government might offer to double-glaze their windows at no charge to them.
My local authority in Croydon made a very sensible suggestion to the Department of the Environment, that the line should be continued in a tunnel until Woldingham, well clear of the built-up area. I am assured that that is technically feasible. It would be expensive, but if the Department balances against that expense the cost of compensating not only those whose houses are destroyed but those whose houses are rendered uninhabitable by injurious affection, I am sure that it will give serious consideration to the proposal, which is environmentally sensible in view of the duty of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to protect the physical fabric of the country in which we live.
Have any detailed technical studies been made of the effect of driving trains at 150 mph through a very long tunnel? There are no prototypes in existence. Here in London we are standing on the longest rail tunnel in the world, but it is occupied by underground trains that stop at every station and never go more than 40 mph, and there is frequent ventilation. Imagine the effect of projecting a successsion of trains at 150 mph through the

proposed pipes. Has that technical matter been given all the attention that it deserves? If it has not, all the economic forecasts geared to the speed, and therefore the structure, of the trains, are at risk.
Equally, I hope that my hon. Friend will pay some attention to the rapid loading of the ferry trains. A rate of loading of one every three minutes, or something unbelievable, has been quoted. I do not believe, with the best will in the world, that trains can be loaded at that rate. If that cannot be done, once again the forecasts of profitability are seriously at risk.
Nothing like enough time has teen allowed, in the technical studies which I have read, for the servicing of the tunnels. The tunnels will have to be shut down for approximately six hours every 24 hours so that essential daily maintenance can be carried out. We can take no chances with the servicing and maintenance when we are to commit enormous numbers of people at high speed into the tunnels. The standard of servicing required will not be out of line with what goes on in conventional tunnels throughout the world. The Simplon Tunnel through the Alps is a good example.
I shall not go through all my reservations. Those matters have been covered in previous debates. They are serious matters. There is a great problem for my constituents. While we may agree that we need better links with the Continent and that we must move with the times, the fact remains that a great deal of suffering will be caused unless we can assure people well in advance that they will not lose their homes or be paid a fraction of their real value. We want an assurance now to deal with the special case of people who have to sell their houses or who die before British Rail finally makes an offer for their houses. My reservations have been stated before, and I hope that on this occasion my right hon. Friend will make it easier for those who have serious reservations to consider his proposals favourably.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: This is a classic example of the Treasury draftsman's short Bill. It is designed to lull us all into a sense of agreement. In every clause there is contained a potential liability for the nation


which the nation should not be asked to undertake.
If all the financial pundits, the financial forecasters and the financial journalists are right in their assessments, the tunnel will be one of the biggest money spinners of all time. It is said that the tunnel will be a bonanza. If that is so, what is the necessity for public finance? Straight away, the Government are in at the deep end with both feet. Initially there is to be provided £30 million, with £22 million coming from public finance.
Those hon. Members who have sat on various specialist committees—I was a member of the Select Committee which investigated the aircraft industry in 1954—will realise how easy it is to become involved without realising it.
There are two projects on which the nation has badly burnt its fingers. One is the development of nuclear power. Design studies have been undertaken, and to no end, for 20 years. We have not produced one nuclear power station after 20 years. We have poured millions of pounds into research and design studies. Concorde is still costing £2 million a day. That product is still in the design study stage.
It is with those examples in mind that hon. Members become anxious when they read Bills of this character. We must be cautious. The project involves £30 million for design studies, traffic studies and revenue studies. There is not one word about the matters which the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) mentioned—namely, compensation for the displacement of people who will be affected.
The problem facing my constituents is greater than that facing the constituents of Croydon, South. The Government, with the blessing of the Opposition, have concurred that the terminal shall be at White City. That is one of the most congested boroughs in the whole of London. Housing land is at a premium in that area. The only thing which we do not make more of in Britain is housing land or land of any kind. The land which will be used will be a further permanent loss. That land could be claimed justifiably for housing.
British Rail is said to own the land which is available in the White City area.

What compensation will be offered to the hundreds of householders who will have to be displaced? The first study should have been about compensation for the displacement, dislocation and uprooting of people who will be troubled for many years following the construction of the tunnel.
The issue goes further than that. The hon. Member for Croydon, South is right. We are committed from the start. However, there is a difference in philosophy between the two Front Benches. The Opposition Front Bench has said that there shall be a rail tunnel only. What will happen if in 12 months there is a change of Government? What shall we be committed to then? Shall we be committed to taking over the plans in toto? Shall we be committed to compensate the French Government, the French financiers, the British financiers and the Channel Tunnel Company for a tunnel which may never be built?
That is the kind of mess into which we are getting ourselves. Never mind the forecasts of profit. We should have first considered capital engineering costs. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the tunnel is a nineteenth century concept in engineering. It is not a project which takes us to the frontiers of technology. I fail to see the need for a figure of such magnitude for design studies. We have built tunnels all over the world from Hong Kong to San Francisco. Britain has been involved with the development of tunnels and has been a large investor and exporter throughout the world. The technique is known. A subterranean design study may be required, but that need not cost £30 million. At any stage the tunnel may have to be abandoned.
The Bill before the House is short. The hybrid Bill, when it arrives, should deal with the matters and the fears which have been mentioned. The Government draftsmen should consider the issue not strictly from the terms of the financial arrangements. They should consider how those arrangements will affect the people concerned by the Bill. That is not what they have done but that is what they should do.
When the hullabaloo starts, once the die is cast, there may well be endless legislation. We cannot determine compensation on the basis of house to house,


shop to shop or factory to factory. Properties will become due for compensation at different times. Some will become the subject of compensation within the first two or three years of the scheme. Some may become involved 20 years or 30 years later. What will be the coherent standard for compensation? Will compensation be payable over "X" number of years? Will there be taken into account the changing value of property and money? Such matters have not been considered, and for that reason I shall be joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in Lobby.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State emphasised that the Bill did not represent a final and irrevocable step, but none of us is under any illusion about what we are debating. If the Bill is passed, from this moment forward the rolling motorway beings to roll. If the House wished to take a contrary decision on subsequent legislation, I cannot imagine that the Government would accept that it was right to do so. They would say that the House was committed in principle and that on the basis of this legislation they had signed a treaty and had encouraged people to put in risk capital. If the Bill is passed as it stands, the House and the country are committed to going forward, right to completion, with this Channel Tunnel. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend will disagree that that is the intention, and the House should be under no illusion about it.

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend should not take my agreement to such a proposition for granted. Had he listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, he would have heard him say clearly that the Bill was a step further forward. If it were a final commitment, why would we introduce a major Bill later in the Session?

Mr. Moate: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I quoted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as saying that the Bill was not a final and irrevocable step, but in practice we recognise this to be the decisive moment. I think that is self-evident, although there are, in theory, options by which we can extricate ourselves later.
We have been told that the final cost will be £846 million at 1981 prices, plus the cost of the railway, but when the tunnel project was first approved—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) gave it her blessing originally in 1966—the cost was estimated at between £160 million and £170 million. That represents quite an escalation in seven years. These figures are important because the British taxpayer will guarantee that the out-turn price will not be much more than £850 million and we want to be sure that we are not backing another white elephant.
If the project is delayed even by one year—and a project of this size is not likely to be delayed only by a year—the extra interest charges will be £80 million plus. If the project is delayed by much more than a year, as it obviously could be, the increase in the final cost and the subsequent interest burden will be massive.

Mr. Adam Butler: The purpose of this initial period is to establish the approach road and some of the service tunnel. This will give an indication whether we are likely to be on time if the main project goes ahead.

Mr. Moate: Of course that is so and I recognise the logic and common sense of that trial period, but with most construction jobs of this nature many delays occur during the contract period and during construction, and would not be evident in the initial stages.
The basic question which has not been answered by the Government has been put to my right hon. Friend many times. If the project is likely to be so profitable, why does it need a Government guarantee? It is incumbent upon the Government to explain this. If the prospects are so good, why cannot private operators raise the capital required in the City? It has been done before for other projects. The extraction of North Sea oil, for example, involves far more money than does the Channel Tunnel. I ask my right hon. Friend to explain, if the figures are so good and the risk is so safe for the taxpayer, why the Government need to offer a guarantee.
When we debated the White Paper I abstained from voting because I am attracted by the idea of a Channel Tunnel, but one based on a railway link.


When one reads the White Paper and hears my right hon. Friend speak on this subject one sees the enormous opportunity and the attractions of establishing a fast connection between the railway systems of Britain and Europe. I want British Rail to have this opportunity to switch freight from road to rail. It makes sense. Those advantages would accrue from a railway-only tunnel, from a tunnel which does not have a Cheriton terminal and which is based on passengers, freight and motor vehicles boarding at many regional termini throughout Britain.
I would further request the Government to put in hand during the next phase a serious study of the advantages and disadvantages of and the economic case for and against a railway-only tunnel, and to report back to the House. There are figures which show that it would cost 30 per cent. less to construct such a tunnel and that the operating costs would be very much less. There could be a handsome profit by 1990 from such a railway-only tunnel.
The figures for the operating costs for a railway-only tunnel are startling. One report submitted, I understand by the Channel Tunnel Company states that with a railway-only tunnel—with no rolling motorway and no terminal—the operating costs in 1990 would be £5 million a year. The operating costs for the vehicle ferry type tunnel will be £34 million per annum. The same chart shows that the railway-only tunnel could still make a profit by 1990 of £54 million after servicing all debt, compared with the £163 million profit estimated from the vehicle ferry system. These figures are impressive. In view of the environmental advantages of a railway-only tunnel, the Government should institute a serious inquiry about it, or at least try to answer the case that has been made Out by a large number of bodies outside the House who have given a great deal of attention to it.
On the question of the projected profits to be made, are not we being complacent in thinking that a Government-backed project would be allowed by the British public to make a profit of nearly two-thirds of its gross receipts? If we reached a stage where the gross receipts were £286 million with a pre-tax profit after interest charges of £163 million, there would be

an enormous outcry in the country and great pressure for the rates to be brought down.
I should like an amendment to be made to the Bill providing that before we proceed there shall be a proper public inquiry. In the last year or two we have heard a great deal from my hon. and right hon. Friends—and I know they mean this sincerely—about encouraging greater public participation in all these great planning projects. I readily pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who has been to great lengths in discussing the project in Kent with many bodies and others who wanted to discuss it with him. That has been immensely helpful, but there is a difference, which I know he will recognise, between full and frank discussions and a full public inquiry at which the public can put their case formally and where the results are analysed and considered by an impartial and objective body. We need a public inquiry particularly because of the tremendous environmental considerations that apply, certainly to Kent.

Mr. Mulley: The Opposition attempted to provide for a public inquiry in the terms of an amendment we moved on the last occasion. I do not think that we had the support of the hon. Gentleman then.

Mr. Moate: As I said, I abstained on that occasion because, if the Opposition had been successful in carrying the amendment, the project would probably have been killed stone dead, whereas many of us wish to have the railway-only principle analysed further. That would mean that the Bill could proceed but with amendments in which could be incorporated some of the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in that debate. I hope that before we consider the Bill in Committee we shall be able to put down constructive amendments on these points—first, a study of the railway-only link, and secondly, the holding of a public inquiry before we proceed further.
I believe that the environmental damage to Kent has been underestimated. Admittedly, whatever happens, there will be an increase in the number of lorries and cars on the roads. Much of this traffic will go along the present roads to the Channel ports. If the tunnel is built with


the terminus in Kent it will attract many cars and lorries from all the other ports on the South Coast, and from the airports to the Kent coast. Although there will be motor rail facilities. My right hon. Friend's Department told me recently in a letter that it recognised that because of cost only a small proportion of the traffic will go on the motor rail services. Therefore, most of it will go on the roads.
The four million cars—the figure which has been projected for 1990—will be spread over a great area of Kent.
My right hon. Friends believe that this traffic will be contained on the M20, but the motor car does not behave like that, and the situation will not develop that way. There will still be heavy traffic going to Folkestone and Dover, as well as to Cheriton. If a railway-only tunnel is built, then British Rail should be backed so that it can have a fare structure designed to attract goods and vehicles off the roads on to the railway. It would be a great opportunity to protect the environment to a large degree.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am concerned with what my hon. Friend said, and I was interested to hear his development of this point. Can he suggest where the motor car would go if there were not a Channel Tunnel?

Mr. Moate: That is a very important point. The point is, simply, as everyone agrees, that the motor car will be driven through Kent. This has been stated categorically by both supporters and opponents of the tunnel. The motor car will go through Dover or Folkestone or other ports, such as Southampton, or the hoverports, or through Cheriton. It is now suggested that Cheriton should be added to these other ports. This would give a positive attraction to motorists to drive through Kent.
British Rail should be given every encouragement to offer cheap charter trips which would persuade people to leave their cars at home and travel by train, from the many regional centres, on their way to their holiday or business destinations and hire a motor car at the other end. This is the solution we should be looking to. It is ironical that at a time when people are at last beginning to question the absolute right of the motor car and lorry to travel freely

across the country, a project is being initiated which is designed to give one of the biggest boosts we have ever had to road travel.

Mr. John Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend has been talking about the extra traffic which will be attracted into Kent because of the tunnel. Would he agree that many juggernauts at present travelling to East Coast ports would be attracted by the existence of the tunnel on to the roads of Kent and through the tunnel?

Mr. Moate: It is probable that that would be one result. It should be a railway-only tunnel, based on a railway-only philosophy, and if necessary paid for by the French and British Governments. We must face the fact that if private enterprise does not want to do it, then it should be a Government-owned tunnel like all other railway tunnels. The scheme should be based on a positive policy, once and for all, to get vehicles off the road and on to rail.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has posed one of the most important of all the questions likely to arise in the debate. If the tunnel is to be so profitable, why has it to be guaranteed by the Government? It is a question to which we have never had an answer, and we are never likely to have an answer. I will explain why.
The Government are not in the position of insisting on their 90 per cent. involvement. They have this degree of involvement because there is no alternative. They did not think that it was such a profitable venture that they could say to private interests "Stand aside while we cash in on such a profitable venture." What they are saying in fact is that it is such a risky scheme, and so unlikely to have a high degree of profitability, that it needs to be underwritten by the Government. This means that the profits will depend upon Government action, and in such a situation one is able to get private interests involved.
The Government are going to influence the competition. They are influencing it now. I remind the House of the investigation being undertaken by the Monopolies Commission into the ferry services. When the commission finally deigns


to report after all this time and the Minister involved has to reach a decision, clearly he must be influenced by the amount of money which is going to be made by the Channel Tunnel itself.
Clearly, in such a situation, if the Channel Tunnel's finances look a bit shaky, the Minister will look less fiercely upon such a monopolistic arrangement as that undertaken by the ferries. On the other hand, if he sees that the profits from the Channel Tunnel are likely to be very high indeed, clearly he will be prepared more readily to allow a greater element of competition. So the essential profitability of the Channel Tunnel will be very largely determined by the Government. They will have full power to act on the toll charges on vehicles and people going through the tunnel. These will largely be decided by Government intervention as well.
So if the Government, by this means and others, are going to determine the minimum profitability, what the private investor is gambling on is not a Channel Tunnel in the absence of anything else. He is deciding on what the Government will effectively allow, and since the Government themselves stand behind this scheme it is clear that his position becomes more favourable than it might otherwise be.
Why are the Government entering into an undertaking of this kind? It is because if something goes wrong they will have the ability to blame somebody—that is, the private interests. They will be able to blame the private interests for anything that might go less well than they might have expected. I put it in another and more kindly way to the Government. The Government believe that private interests will give an element of objectivity to the scheme.
But in this the Government are mistaken, because the 10 per cent. involvement of private interests must be only a reflection of how those private interests consider the importance of Government involvement. As a result, there will never be that objectivity which the Government are seeking. The Government have to make the decision themselves, and if they have to make it themselves there is no point in having these private interests, which serve no function except possibly as an excuse whereby,

when things go wrong, the Government will be able to point to people other than themselves as having made errors.
I would accept these risks in the scheme if I regarded the basic scheme itself as sound. The difficulty I am in is that I am very attracted to the whole principle of a cross-Channel link. At some time in future we must come to a decision as to what should be the proper form of such a fixed link across the Channel. The trouble in this case is that Governments right back to 1963 and before decided on the kind of scheme they wanted and have pursued it ever since. Their minds were closed from the beginning.
What is at fault is the planning organisation within the Department itself. Three Governments have been involved, with five or six Ministers. Not one of them has been able to re-open the project to look at it afresh during these past 10 years. The engineering structure was posed at least 15 years ago—indeed, some would say that it was posed as long ago as the last century. The failure over such a long period to re-examine that structure must be the failure of the Department itself.
In a re-examination, the Government should have looked at the widest aspects of the cross-Channel link and, as they proceeded to the investigation, zeroed in on the final scheme which offered the best hopes. But that has not happened, as I know only too well because I tried to get the matter re-opened and was appalled by the ignorance of other matters which should have been a common place of discussion within the Department. The Department had a limited vision and retained it.
There is a similar case—that of Stansted airport. The Department then took a blinkered view, based on the movement of air traffic, and held Stansted to be the one airport which would meet the situation. But on that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who was then the Minister responsible, had the courage and determination to re-open the case. I regret that successive Ministers of Transport have fallen short of that example in considering this Channel Tunnel.
So we have the situation in which no one can feel happy about the arrangement before us. Engineering science is moving at a rapid rate but we are taking


none of it into account. The only consolation I find in the Bill is that some of the dreamy and rosy pictures which were before the eyes of some Ministers have now been replaced. This is shown in Clause 1(1)(c)(ii), by which the Secretary of State will have power to pay out money in order to wind up the project. I suggest that at any time during the last few years had such a Bill been presented to the House it would almost certainly not have contained a provision of that kind. That is one element of realism at least. If the Government find themselves with one or two dud companies on their hands in the event of there being a winding-up, they will be able to make changes. What is the position of the private interests in the Channel Tunnel Company at the present time? What are the Government's intentions?
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) spoke about the slippery slope, and how right he was. All these projects, once begun, have some of the functions and disadvantages of the slippery slope, but this one has more than most. There are two main reasons.
First, the Government are setting a limit of £35 million, which we know will be spent almost come what may. No one is going to say "We have spent £20 million and it is not going very well, so let us call it a day." That will not happen because when such projects are started they are difficult to stop. Secondly, they are even more difficult to stop when one is in partnership with rather different interests from those of oneself.
We thus have the situation in which the Government might decide that they have made a mistake but in order to bring the project to a conclusion they would need the French Government simultaneously to come to the same conclusion. The difficulty there is that there are always phases in such matters, as we have learned with the Concorde. At a time when one Government are blowing hot, the other tend to be blowing cold. To have a coincidence when both Governments are blowing roughly the same temperature, other than rosy optimism, is not easy.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and himself. It

has been made clear that it is open to any party to abandon the project at any time, and the residuary loss to the Governments would in the circumstances be divided 50–50. He cannot say that it would take the agreement of the two Governments.

Mr. Sheldon: I am aware of that. The right hon. Gentleman has made the point before. But the fact is that when it came to the crunch that kind of decision would not be taken, even if with such an exemption clause. It would not be taken for the same reason as it has not been taken in the case of the Concorde. All sorts of ramifications are involved and the Government would be bound to take them into account. When one is talking of having spent £20 million and there is the question of spending another £5 million or another £10 million, then I assure the House that the extra money will be spent. I would settle for that now. What worries me is that the right hon. Gentleman or his successor may be coming to this House saying that £30 million to £35 million is not enough. Then we would have to introduce another Bill for a further £10 million or £15 million. Once we start on the slippery slope there is no telling where we might end.
I should be happy to accept those large risks if I felt sure that we had the right project. It is because I am so dissatisfied with the project that I am dissatisfied with the kind of risk that we are taking.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give the power to guarantee the interests concerned. We know that the agreement which is to be guaranteed has not yet been made. I find that unsatisfactory, too.
Clause 1(5) says that the Government—I give them credit because they are doing more than previous Governments have done—are to lay before the House a statement of the guarantee, but that will be done immediately after the moneys are guaranteed. I cannot see why the Government, having gone so far, should not have gone that step further and said that the statement of guarantee should come before those moneys are guaranteed. I hope to table an amendment to that end. It is the only way in which we would be able to


control the project. We all know the difficulties of controlling a project and of supervising it. It is a problem, as with all kinds of ventures that must be solved. If there is to be some measure of control the House of Commons should acquire it.

5.7 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton: I have certain misgivings over the Bill. I realise that my right hon. Friend will apply an excuse, rather like that for the unexpected baby—that "It is only a little one." Unfortunately, once we have taken this step, a large amount of public expenditure must inevitably follow. The project will happen at a time when, quite rightly, the Government are moderating the growth of public expenditure and are postponing many important projects for communications because the economy is overheated.
My first question and complaint about the Bill is directed towards its wrong timing. Is it the right time to put forward this expenditure of £30 million to £35 million when important road programmes are of necessity delayed by the Government because of the overheated economy? How many road projects that would otherwise be carried out next year and in the following years will have to be delayed because of the Government's commitment to this measure?
I listened with sympathy and attention to what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Kent and Surrey, but I am thinking more of the North-East, where road communications important to exports have been held up for six or seven years so that we cannot get our exports to Europe from our own Teesside ports. Will the project in question hold up communications in the North-East? I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance that, whatever the effect of the Bill and its financial implications, he will put greater dynamism into improving communications between the West Riding of Yorkshire and Teesside than his precedessors have done.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) said that it was good news that all the additional rail expenditure would be given in grant. That gave me a shock. We are embarking here on a project which will cost not £30 million but £1,000 million, all of which

will be directed into a narrow corridor through Surrey and Kent in order to get to France. I have often wondered—I should like the economists to make some estimate—what has been the cost of the infrastructure in the South-East compared with that in the regions. I believe that the figures would show that successive Governments have neglected the regions in favour of the South-East.

Mr. Peyton: I should be happy to provide my right hon. Friend with some such figures, but if he were to compare the roads of either the North-East or the North-West with those of the South-East he would find the comparison overwhelmingly favourable to the North. The roads of Kent have been shockingly neglected for many years; I am trying at long last to restore the balance.

Sir Robin Turton: I am very grateful. I was talking not just of the road programme but of the whole of the infrastructure, which includes projects like the Victoria Line and other capital expenditure which has gone into the South-East. If that is balanced against the regional policies of successive Governments, I believe that it will be seen that the South-East has been unduly favoured. That is why there has been the drift to the South-East and away from the regions.
We should also consider what is happening across the Channel; I should be grateful for some details. The emphasis in the Community will probably be found to be centred on the Rhine-Danube Canal rather than on any route through France. If that is so, it is wrong to think merely of this "Chunnel" link with France rather than of ferry services to Europe and steamer services north to Scandinavia.
I cannot understand Chapter 11.21 of the White Paper. I appreciate that, now that the Government are backing this risk, it is right that, if the scheme is wound up, they should compensate the private enterprise for a part of its commitment. But it seems doubtful to me whether we have any obligation to guarantee compensation of 50 per cent. of the money invested before the Government had backed the risk.
Would my right hon. Friend go in greater detail into Clause 1(1)(c)(ii) which I gather gives him the statutory


authority for this generous provision over compensation. I should have thought that there was a good case for saying that, if the scheme proved abortive, the Government should guarantee some return to those who were encouraged for having undertaken to back it.
Sixty years ago, when I was young, I remember people talking about a Channel tunnel and saying then that it would have been better done 50 years before and that at that time it was out of date. With what is happening now in engineering and with the tendency for trade to radiate to all areas in England, especially when we have been pressing on all sides for greater attention to regional policy, this scheme seems sadly out of date. The Bill should be given the conventional parliamentary treatment of being considered again in six months' time.

5.16 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: The Minister seems to have no friends in the House tonight. He certainly has none on this side, and all his hon. Friends who have spoken so far have shown clearly that they do not like the Bill's proposals.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) asked a very important question—why is this scheme brought forward at this particular time? The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) have mentioned the severe social, as well as economic, costs of this scheme. The cut-back in the road building programme that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned is only part of the difficulties which make this scheme utterly incomprehensible.
I am amazed that the Minister, who is generally regarded as intelligent, in contrast to a large number of his colleagues on the Front Bench, should have persisted with this scheme instead of doing as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested and throwing the whole thing back, telling his civil servants to bring themselves up to date. If we must have a Channel crossing, let us consider something more up-to-date than a proposal that is over 100 years old.
I will not go into the history of the ideas about the building of the Channel Tunnel because I did that in the debate on the White Paper, when the Minister was present.
I am concerned about the social costs of this scheme and its effect on the building industry which will have to provide the necessary men and materials. We are in enormous difficulty. Many other Ministers are in acute difficulty and embarrassment. As a result, the local authority house-building programmes, for example, have been held back. The Secretary of State for Education and Science recently announced cuts of £100 million in local authority school-building programmes. My own authority, for example, has lost nine projects which range from nursery projects to the polytechnic—all because we are in an over-heated situation. The Secretary of State for Social Services has cut back on hospital building for the same reason, and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned the road-building programme.
Therefore, this is the worst possible moment to bring forward a scheme which is expensive in terms both of money and of the demands that it will make on men and materials. The Minister would be well advised to think again and to withdraw the Bill.
If we look at the demand this project will make not only upon money but upon materials it will be seen that problems may arise because of the long delays in the supply of materials to builders large and small. What will the Minister do if he finds that his project cannot start because there is no timber, or no aggregates with which to make concrete? He will be in difficulties. What sort of material will be used to build this tunnel?
There is chaos in the aggregates industry, where good material is being wasted and not much use is being made of artificial materials. The steel industry cannot supply the steel which the construction industry needs, either reinforcing steel or pre-stressed steel. This will be needed in enormous quantities for the tunnel, even in the initial stages. When the project gets going there will be this open-ended commitment and a continuing demand on scarce building resources which the country needs for other purposes.

Mr. David Crouch: I am interested in the hon. Lady's observations about aggregates. Does she think that the boring of the tunnel will require great use of these? Is it not a fact that the tunnel is to be steel-lined?

Mrs. Short: Concrete will be needed in large quantities to build a tunnel. It is not a completely steel construction. Perhaps the Minister would like to go into the technical details when he replies. I think the hon. Member can be assured that large quantities of this material will be needed as well as steel. The Government are not prepared to expand the steel industry. There will be a continuing drain by the tunnel on scarce resources needed for other, more important, social purposes.
If this was put to the people I am sure they would say without hesitation "Leave the Channel Tunnel; we are not interested in it. We do not want it, but we do want schools, houses, hospitals and roads." This is what the right hon. Gentleman should be concerning himself about, not his wretched tunnel. In the debate on the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make fun of what I said about steamers. He said that I had said "stick to steamers." Presumably the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to drop the steamers to the bottom of the Channel. There will still be the steamers. The ferries will presumably still be plying to and fro. I do not believe that he has ever done a proper analysis of the cost and the way in which custom will be removed from existing ferry and air links in favour of the tunnel.
If the hon. Gentleman makes the profit out of his tunnel that he expects, and that private enterprise is absolutely certain it will make, then unless there is a tremendous increase in the number of people wanting to cross the Channel, and we are by no means certain that that will happen, the established means of crossing the Channel will suffer. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us more about this. He ought to look, as the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, at some of the areas where road links are needed which would serve other crossings to the Continent, both for trade and for passenger travel.
I repeat what I have said during the debate on the White Paper. The road

links between the Midlands, where my constituency is, and where an enormous number of engineering projects are made, to the East Coast are non-existent. The right hon. Gentleman ought to look at these projects to see what can be done before he embarks on this white elephant of a Channel Tunnel. This open-ended commitment is likely to lead to the expenditure of £100 million or more before it is completed. It is a scandalous project for the Government to be bringing forward.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said that she was looking for something more modern, but she then reverted to her famous steamers. I suggest that if she does want something more modern it is likely to cost much more than the tunnel, while the risks will be very much greater than those attending upon the tunnel.

Mrs. Renée Short: Can the hon. Gentleman point to any cost-benefit schemes or alternative plans that have been worked out and costed? None exists in the Department.

Mr. Butler: I was coming to the point of the cost and how certain we can be. If the hon. Lady will listen to the brief speech I hope to make I trust that I shall deal with the point.
I hesitated slightly to enter the debate because my constituents are not directly affected in the same way as so many of those of my hon. Friends. I sympathise with the worries expressed on behalf of his constituents by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson). Those are justifiable worries. When I look more closely I see that my constituents do have a real interest because running through Bosworth is the M1, as well as other trunk roads. Further, my constituents are interested in getting to the Continent by the most agreeable and shortest route, for business or holiday. They are also interested in getting their products there if they are exporters. I therefore find that they are very much affected.
I mention roads because this is surely the greatest attraction of the tunnel. In my view, it is the main justification for it because it provides an opportunity to


switch so much of our freight and passenger traffic from the roads to the rail system. I would like my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that of this money we are debating today, and on which we hope to vote shortly, an adequate amount will be devoted to preparing the necessary surveys to ensure not only that the most effective rail link is devised but that there are no delays in putting it into effect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) is rightly concerned about the export opportunities for the North-East and so many of the industrial peripheries of our country. If the export business can be put on to rail and guaranteed a through route to the Continent, the expenditure which I understood him to be looking for on roads becomes less necessary. It is because those industrial areas will be so much better served as a result of the tunnel that I support it.
Reference has been made to motorail. This ties in with one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in his request for a rail-only tunnel and the suggestion that the Cheriton terminal should be abandoned. Quite understandably, he hoped that traffic, passenger or freight, would be loaded at regional terminals. There is nothing to prevent that happening, and I believe that the cost of motorail will become much more attractive over the next few years as fuel costs escalate. We shall experience this rise shortly. I also see this continuing demand for a rail-only tunnel by the Opposition as being an attempt to retain that insularity which they have displayed over many years on this and other projects.
This again is where my constituents come in. Those who are now in favour of the European Community and those who are coming to accept it see this tunnel as an essential link between the Continent and this island of ours. Again the rail-only tunnel ignores the basic fact of life as far as the motor car is concerned; namely, that people like to take their motor cars with them. However one might encourage the use of rail and the hiring of rented cars at one's destination, there is no doubt that, particularly for family travel, people will want to take

their cars to the Continent. They will have my encouragement to do so, and they will be able to do so by the use of the tunnel as proposed by the Government.
I should like my hon. Friend to clarify further the question of the amount of money for which the Bill makes provision. There is a limit of £35 million. As I understand it, we are hoping for and expecting a cost for the initial period of £30 million, of which £8 million is to be found from private risk capital and the balance of £22 million by Government guarantee. Half of this amount will be taken by the French.
According to my mathematics, that leaves £11 million, and I cannot see the justification for putting in this figure of £30 million, which can be raised to £35 million. Clearly, there will be fluctuations, so I can see that there could be some requirements over and above the mean figure in the short period, to be recovered, perhaps, from the French. However, I do not understand why we have to write in that amount, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to explain.
I welcome the prudent approach that has been adopted by the Government. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) talked about the slippery slope, but that is absolute nonsense. If in a sophisticated society we are not prepared to move a step forward from this order of magnitude, which in today's terms is not big spending, and are not prepared to withdraw, we should be ashamed of the society that we have set up.
It is no good trying to compare this venture with Concorde and indicating that we might well be considering withdrawal from that, because the dissimilarity and difference in price are colossal.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that Governments have changed over the past few years. Surely he is aware of the whole history of escalation of costs and the reluctance of Governments to cancel once they find themselves embarked on any project.

Mr. Butler: I recollect that the Labour Government chose to cancel the TSR2 at a very advanced stage, and that was a decision taken with a cost far greater than


this. My right hon. Friend's Government will still be in power in 1975, and they will be able to take the decision if it is necessary.
The prudent approach is to be welcomed, because it will tell us more about the technologies that will have to be used in boring, giving us the experience that we need. However, as these are mostly known technologies, we should look for a speeding up of the final operation, particularly in view of the rapid progress with the Victoria tunnel, admittedly a slightly smaller project, but involving not dissimilar tunnelling techniques.
When I first considered this project, I had one reservation only. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East made the point when she said that we should not be committing money, materials or men to a project of this magnitude at a time when these commodities appeared to be in short supply or when we should be restricting Government expenditure.
A point of omission from the beginning of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was that he did not emphasise once again the stages in which the money is to be spent and the insignificant sums of money which are to be paid out over the next two or three years. The demand on men and materials, too, will be relatively small in the same period. As that is the case, I have no hesitation in supporting this initial expenditure and hope that the project can go ahead.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: We are admittedly dealing only with a money Bill today, but the Bill includes the moneys for preliminary work to be done on further studies, particularly regarding the construction of the Channel Tunnel project.
It has been made clear by a number of speakers that, although the amount of money involved at this stage may be considered insignificant compared to the global cost of such a project, it is nevertheless the first step. The Minister may say that it can be cancelled and that this is written into the contract. However, it is like a helter-skelter in that once the first yard or two is covered it is impossible to stop. The escalations of

the costs involved bring to mind the consideration of the Concorde project.
It must be remembered that this project is always advanced on the basis of commercial justification—that is, that it will pay. This reason is always put forward, rather than that of extending our transportation system from this country to the Continent. It is advanced on the basis that this project is viable, that it can pay, that it is profitable and, therefore, a good investment for us to consider guaranteeing the money that will go into this project.
I agree that the private sector has made absolutely clear what it thinks of the future of such a project, certainly the dubiousness of it, in that there has to be a Government guarantee for this money. Many reasons have been given about the difficulty of raising this sort of capital, but many greater amounts of money are raised regularly on the money markets for North Sea investment projects without any guarantee. That is a good indication of what the private sector thinks about this project.
I have to admit that the previous Government thought of the idea of mixing industry and the Civil Service as some kind of check on the latter in this situation. I accept that as a disagreeable fact. But if that is so, having got the private sector to do the studies and provide the answers, and even if that group is still saying that it is a viable project to be undertaken, why not take notice of the greater commercial sense in the market—the people who provide the money, who are giving it the thumbs down signal? It would be far better to take that latter point rather than the mix of private and public we have on this project.
What is essential to it is the studies. We cannot be precise in this type of study, but we have to be sure that the assumptions are nearly correct, to justify the commercial basis of the profitability of this project.
A massive amount of data has been made available about the Channel Tunnel. If I may make a "plug", if we had research assistants or even a full-time secretary we might be better able to make an assessment as Members of Parliament about this sort of project. But we do not have that, and I have no job outside the House to assist.
The importance of the consultants in this arrangement is that the consultants make assumptions and give figures and details of their subjects. But it is not without significance that they are consultants both to those building the tunnel and to those involved with the company. It is rather like going to Hawker-Siddeley about the Concorde project and asking for a feasibility study on it.
I am not impugning the honesty of the consultants, but they are deeply immersed in their assumptions and we should be able to have a check. In a massive project such as this, a check is essential.
At the same time, the Achilles heel in this project is the Channel shipping interests. If their commercial predictions are correct, the Channel Tunnel will not be a commercial proposition. They dispute the evidence given to the consultants and its interpretation by the consultants.
If there is a serious dispute between these two parties, we should look extremely closely at the assumptions and be careful about how we assess our information. I will not go over the details again, but it is plain that the importance of this project depends upon how much share of traffic the tunnel can get.
It boils down to the fact that the tunnel w ill be able to get 80 per cent. of the holiday traffic, with fares 40 per cent. higher than shipping fares. It is a dubious project, and I would be the last to accept the word of the shipowners, having spent a great deal of time contesting their views, but we need a more independent judgment.
We have been told of a wealth of data. We have been told how high this data would stand if they were stood on the deck and their height and weight measured. But we have not analysed the quality of the data, nor of data that may have been missed.
I want to comment on a sector in which we all have an interest and responsibility—the investment by British Rail. This is a nationalised industry and is very much caught up in the project. It is required to deal with an investment outside the investment requirements of the Channel Tunnel and amounting to £168 million, plus possibly £100 million for interest payments and inflation during the period of the project.
So we are talking of a British Rail investment in rail facilities alone of about £268 million. Clearly, we need to look at our justification for British Railways alone making that investment, quite apart from whether they will be allowed Government resources to invest in the regions where rail investment is needed, probably on a much greater scale than in the South-East for the tunnel.
I want to consider the British Rail argument about investment. In this sphere we have to rely upon the consultants, as British Rail has given little evidence to the House for us to be able to make an assessment of the situation.
I can only presume that more detailed information has been passed to the Minister. The only pamphlets we have seen have been glossy pamphlets about how one gets to a destination, the type of accommodation available, and so on; but very little hard data. That is what we need to make a judgment. Nevertheless, the assessment is made and quoted by British Rail. It is shown to be the view of the consultants that the return to British Rail would be about 14 to 17 per cent. I assume that a separate account will be kept of British Rail's investment, and that when its return is assessed, it will be assessed on the return on the investment for the Channel Tunnel.
A nationalised industry such as this has other responsibiliies and has to consider developments resulting from participating in the Channel Tunnel. Being responsible for the public purse, we must take that into account because of the State invesment in a nationalised industry.
As I said, it is assumed that there will be a return of 14 to 17 per cent. on the investment. The studies take into account an assessment of a capital saving as a State investment by comparing the estimated number of ships required if there were a tunnel with the number needed without a tunnel. The difference between those two figures would represent the net saving to the community or to a nationalised industry.
The study could also estimate, as consultants do in such studies, the cost if fewer ships or ports were operated and there was, therefore, less activity. It could estimate, too, the cost of operating transport systems and the amount of money that is used. In fact, an estimate


of that has been made by the consultants and taken into account.
The important point to remember is that in assessing some of the social consequences of this capital investment one lumps together the estimated saving in ships and in the operating costs of the ports—I am talking mainly about British Railways' activities, because they are a prime investor in both ships and ports—and says that it is a plus which has to be taken into the profitability account because the Government would save that amount of money on capital investments and operating costs by using the tunnel. If that is taken into consideration, the assumptions become absolutely crucial in deciding whether it is a profitable estimate.
Let us look briefly at the ports. I am dealing solely with capital investment and the money that it would involve. According to the Channel Tunnel United Kingdom Transport and Cost Benefit Study, which deals primarily with ports and ship investment, there would be a saving of capital investment of £76 million by 1990. That is something to be added to the computation that the community saves £76 million. It is the community, because the State owns port facilities in Great Britain and, therefore, the public are the net investors.
The assumption made is that a lot of traffic would be diverted to the Channel Tunnel and 25 per cent. of that would be to Dover on roll-on containers. What it does not assess is that if 25 per cent. of the traffic is diverted from one part, such as Hull—I am not making a constituency point—the throughput cost of traffic will rise. The Government's policy is that ports must pay, and if they do not then must close down. We have had an example of this policy in my constituency.
To an operator like British Rail the costs would rise and the ports become more expensive, and one would be left with fixed assets such as a dock which cannot be moved no longer profitable. It involves a lot of capital investment, about £4 million, and has no further use. It is too dirty to use as a swimming pool, and, therefore, has no other value.
One has to bear in mind the massive investment that has already gone into making a port, especially by the Labour

Government, who, after the Rochdale Report put millions of pounds into that industry. So we must take into account what has already been invested in the port and not what might be saved. Balancing in that way produces a deficit rather than profit.
The pro-Marketeers—I am not one—should bear in mind that it is Community policy that ports should be used as a regional development point and that ports are expanded perhaps not on a profitable basis but as part of that regional development. There is much sense in that argument.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Community is actually asking that ports should not be subsidised? Consequently, does that not answer his point?

Mr. Prescott: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that point. I do not think he has looked deeply into what the Community has said concerning ports. EEC countries, having spent millions of pounds subsidising their ports, such as Le Havre—and the hon. Member should know the ports which are in competition with Southampton—now saying "We want to end subsidies;" when for years we have said that the ports should be profitable and not subsidised. All the modern investment in the continental ports will eventually be to the disadvantage of this country, which will have a deficiency of modern investment in its ports and will have to accept the new European policy of no subsidies for the ports.
The consultants' reports says that there will be a capital saving on shipping alone of about £100 million. When one goes into the detail of what that means the assumptions again become all-important. The consultants estimate that 46 more ships will be required by 1980 if there is no tunnel. The shipping industry estimates that we shall need 25 more ships but of a larger type. That number can be disputed, but the important point is that the more ships estimated as being needed by 1980 which will be saved by building the tunnel, the more that can be put down as the capital cost that will be saved on the profit and loss account. That is something which needs more substantial


investigation than has been done b' the consultants.
The capital savings would not be so great. The cost of the 63 ships that apparently would be saved by 1990 represents a saving of capital cost with operating costs of about £150 million. That sounds fine; but why is no wider investigation made into it?
Ships are built, in the main, in shipyards in the underdeveloped areas, and the consequence of denying a shipyard the opportunity to build a ship denies work not only to the shipyard but to the regions and the areas supplying the shipping industry.
That is the multiplying effect, in the phraseology of the economists.
The consultants say that there is no maintenance cost with a tunnel, so that again is a saving. But that maintenance cost, interpreted in terms of jobs, money, work, or regional development, is an important factor which would avoid the necessity of pouring money into the regions—and the Government are always proudly telling us how much money is being poured into the regions.
The point I hope I have made is that the social consequences of investment of this kind need greater analysis than has been done so far. The British Rail argument that £268 million will give a return of 14 per cent. has not been supported by any sound evidence from Members who profess to have strong railway interests.
Shipping, ports and hovercraft form 5 per cent. of British Rail's assets, 5 per cent. of its turnover and 13 per cent. of its profits. The profitable sector will be cut out by this development. We must consider—and I think the consultants have not done so—the effects of cutting out the profitable Channel shipping. British Rail does not make profits on Irish Sea traffic because of the troubles and other reasons. Ferries have to be maintained in unprofitable areas. At the moment there is cross-subsidisation. If the British Rail channel sector is to be ended, the State, or British Rail, will have to step in and subsidise the other areas—which is another deficit cost which should be added to the total.
There is not sufficient detailed data on the points I have mentioned. The social

consequences have not been fully taken into account, and I hope that something will be done to remedy the situation before the next stage is reached.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris: There is not very much time left and quite a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I hope speeches will be as short as possible.

5.55 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I hope I shall not be accused of insularity if I say that I have the greatest misgivings about both the Bill and the project. It is not the magnitude of the project that worries me. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are a country that should, and can, look at big projects such as Maplin, Concorde and the Channel Tunnel. It is the scheme that worries me.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) said, the main justification for the tunnel would be if it would switch freight and passenger traffic from the road to rail. My hon. Friend went on to say that British Railways are likely to benefit from a tunnel because it would give them a through route to the continental railway network, not just to Paris.
Speaking as a Kent Member, I want a rail through-route for Kent for this traffic. My criticism of the Bill is that the Cheriton project will attract more cars; more lorries will come through to Cheriton on the way to the Continent. When they come from the Continent to England they will disgorge at Cheriton and come tearing through the roads of Kent. The traffic will use not just the M20 and the A2 but all the small roads, looking for less crowded roads. Already the villages in Kent are suffering enormous social damage through these juggernauts chasing up and down, causing danger and hazarding life itself.
In view of the last debate we had on this subject, I had hoped that my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleague would have given consideration to the doubts that were expressed about the social cost of the project. That is what worries us, not the money so much as why the Government feel they must produce the Bill just a few days after it was debated in the House when there were few speeches in favour of it.
I do not believe that the Minister's heart is in the Bill. I believe he has been pressured into going ahead with it. Promises were made to the French Government a long time ago that we would go ahead with it without any debate here. He now has to carry the can and produce a Bill which has not been properly thought out.
Earlier in the debate one of my hon. Friends said that the people of Kent were right to ask for a public inquiry. Why is it that the Government in this viable proposition—they say that it will be profitable—will not allow private enterprise to undertake the financing of the project, as in the search for and production of North Sea oil and gas? I see no reason why the Government should put the taxpayers' money into this.
I query the Minister's remark in an intervention that at any time the project can be abandoned. I may be wrong, but I thought that the abandonment could take place only up to the end of 1975. If we went beyond that point we could not revoke. I may be wrong and would like clarification
I should like an itemised budget to be drawn up showing what the £35 million covers. I know that it covers studies, surveys, trials, experimental work, and so on. I should like to see all that itemised so that we could see how the £35 million is made up.
1 have doubts about the Channel Tunnel, although I am not opposed to it. I have doubts about the siting of Cheriton. I should have liked to see detailed plans by British Railways before we went ahead with the project. I should have liked more time to be given to the social consequences and to allow more detailed studies to be made.
I shall have great difficulty in supporting the Government later this evening.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: I am generally in favour of a Channel Tunnel, albeit a rail tunnel. I intended only to listen to the debate. However, I have been impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friends who cast doubts on the ability of the construction industry and the materials industry to do many things at one time.
This project is being brought forward by the Department of the Environment. That Department also brought forward the Maplin project, which may never go ahead, although if the Government have their way it will. On Tuesday last we debated another service administered by the Department of the Environment, namely, housing. During that debate it became obvious that in many parts of the country there was a shortage not only of money for housing but of manpower and materials
The Department of the Environment is responsible for environmental questions and housing and for building tunnels and airports, yet there seems to be no coordination. I wonder whether the Department and the Government have set out their priorities properly. Clearly, we have neither the physical nor the monetary capacity to do all these projects at the same time. The people will have to decide whether we should solve the housing problem or whether we should develop Maplin or the Channel Tunnel. That is an important matter which I hope the Department and the Government will take into account.
I am well aware, because I represent a railway constituency, that the British Railways Board is in general in favour of the present proposals. It would support the rolling road. But I am not sure that it is right. British Rail has an inferiority complex which it has had for a long time. It says that if it cannot get the best, which is a rail-only tunnel carrying goods from centre to centre, then it will make do with second best. Because it thinks it will get some spin-off from the operation of a Channel Tunnel it will support it.
That is the key to British Rail's attitude. In the interests of British Rail, and of the environment of the South-East, it should say, "We believe that we can carry this traffic. We do not need a large terminal at Cheriton. We can do the job from centre to centre if you will only give us the opportunity to do it", but because of its inferiority complex, and because it has been hammered round the ring for so many year, it does not come forward with its solution.
We are told that the terminal at Cheriton will not have any big impact


on the region. But it is bound to have an impact on the region from the point of view not only of motor traffic but of services and industry which will be attracted to the area. Once the pressure is on it will be irresistible. No business will operate in the North or the South-West, with the consequential transport costs, if it can operate near the terminal. There will be pressure for a further build-up of population in the South-East; make no mistake about that. I am against it because it will affect my constituency, and I do not want it to affect my constituency. It will draw to Cheriton firms which would otherwise go to Swindon. I do not want that.
I have a further reason for supporting a rail-only tunnel, namely, that in Swindon we repair, and manufacture a certain number of, wagons, and have facilities for the manufacture of railway engines. Until recently it was almost certain that Swindon railway workshops would close. Now they have been saved, at least for the time being. I believe that if we have a rail-only tunnel British Rail have the potential to provide the wagons, carriages and locomotives necessary to afford a good service which would be beneficial in financial and comfort terms to passengers and from the environment point of view as well. We have that capacity, and I want it used.
That is why I support the tunnel. But I hope that the Government will take into account all the questions raised—the financial aspect, the ability of the country to carry on so many projects at the same time, the effect on the housing situation, and all the other aspects mentioned—before they proceed further. That is why I shall support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby this evening.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary took pains at the start of the debate to make it clear that this did not represent the final decision on the Channel Tunnel, but rather an opportunity for providing funds for further study of its operation and construction. Nevertheless, we should not be tempted into taking this step too lightly. Experience on many other matters suggests that, although proper research is necessary in any pro-

ject of this size, with each step taken it becomes that much more likely that the stage is reached at which people say "We cannot turn back at this stage." Although there is much to recommend the tunnel, at this stage there are aspects of the Government's case as represented in the White Paper which still need a great deal of further study.
However it is done, this project will cause a great deal of damage to the environment of certain parts of Kent. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) said at the beginning of the debate that it is one of the key functions of the House that grievances must be remedied before Supply is granted.
Nothing that has been said by the county council or by hon. Members representing county constituencies denies the fact that Kent recognises that it cannot escape, nor does it seek to escape, from its own geographical situation. But cross-Channel traffic through the county is increasing, and will continue to increase, and that, in addition to profit and advantage for certain commercial interests, and so on, means damage to the environment of the county from the motor car, the tourist trade and the juggernaut lorry, whether or not the tunnel plan goes forward.
The question is how that traffic can grow in such a way as best to serve the national economic interest and at the same time do the least damage to the environment of the county through which so much of it will pass. On a number of aspects the Government's existing proposals require further study, and I ask my right hon. Friend that the funds made available through the Bill should be devoted to further study of the matters I shall now raise.
The prospect for Kent, unless changes are made, is of an excessive expansion of road traffic in addition to the damage that will be caused by the tunnel if it is constructed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) said, Cheriton, under present arrangements, will generate its own traffic. The tourist trade is not sufficient reason for the destruction of the garden of England, and the livelihood and homes of a great many people in the area. The tourist trade can be a great benefit to Britain,


but unless properly controlled it can also be a monster. It deserves to be seen in this way.
The first point I wish to make—and I hope that there will be further studies—is that there should be an examination of the rail-only link. This would go a long way to deal with the point in regard to Cheriton. The British Road Federation argues that consumer preference for the motor car would make a rail-only link less commercially viable. Consumer preference, although important, is not necessarily the dominant interest in an issue of this kind. Studies have not gone far enough to suggest what either consumer reaction or British Rail arrangements would be. We shall receive this sort of information only if the rail-only link study is further pursued.
Secondly, for environmental reasons, I wholeheartedly support the case for positive tariff discrimination in favour of rail as opposed to road traffic.
Thirdly, I believe there should be more detailed studies by British Railways, and they need to be examined in terms of British Railways' proposals in seeking to attract additional freight traffic. British Railways' commercial record on freight has not been sufficiently good for them to be taken at their face value without a great many additional questions about whether they are doing their job properly. This must be seen against the background of juggernauts and similar heavy traffic whose volume we want to see limited.
Fourthly, we need—this applies particularly to my constituency—more information about the methods proposed for dealing with the noise generated by high-speed trains. Tonbridge as a town stands on the route of this railway line, and we need much more information on this aspect.
Fifthly, if road traffic should increase as a result of the Cheriton terminal, Kent will need substantial additional grants from central funds to cope with the additional road programme which will be required in surrounding areas. It is not good enough to say that in the national interest the citizens of Kent must see their landscape despoiled and that at the same time they should be required to pay the rate bill for the despoliation. So far, too little has been done by central Government to give any indication to the Kent

County Council that the Government care a rap about this matter. The face of economic progress is beginning to look just a little ugly to many people in Kent. Rightly they will ask "Is it worth it—is the cost justifiable in environmental terms?" Unless a satisfactory answer can be given to those people and to the House, we shall need to think again on this project.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: We are all agreed that there is a great amount of sympathy for those who are affected by the plan to build a Channel Tunnel. However, I must say to all those hon. Members now present—at least those who have bothered to attend; and one does not see many Liberals present, although they have been making a furore in the Kent area on this issue—that we are tonight dealing with one of the most important transport policy decisions on which this House will ever have to vote.
This legislation is all part of the transport infrastructure of Europe. It does not stop on the French coast but goes right through the Community. Indeed, in future it will reach into Asia Minor and even right the way through to India. These are the sort of policy decisions which face us tonight. We have all heard about the bridge over the Bosphorus, which has become an accepted achievement. Surveys have been, and are being, undertaken throughout the Community on the great traffic barriers of Europe. I refer to the Straits of Denmark, the Messina Straits, and others. We know that there are tunnels running between Denmark and Sweden and now, at long last, we are about to make a decision tonight which will lead to the establishment of a Channel Tunnel.
We must regard the Channel as a dangerous traffic barrier economically and socially. If we do not make the right decision, we shall put at a disadvantage our exporters, our freight hauliers, our nationalised railways, and everybody who wants to take an interest in the Community. This is what will happen if hon. Members take a wrong decision this evening.
One important question that has been asked in this debate is whether this is the right time to spend this amount of


money. With a project of this size, there is never a right time at which to spend money. If we are to spend our money in the right way and to cut our cloth accordingly, perhaps we should look again at Maplin. That is my personal view, but probably it will go unheeded.
The Commission in Brussels is most concerned about the Channel Tunnel. The latest report emanating from the Community dated 24th October, suggests that more consultation is needed on this important part of Europe's transport infrastructure. We see from the White Paper that in 1980, 28 per cent. of the containers that would have passed through Southampton will go via the Channel Tunnel. It might be said that this will be an event which will go against the interests of my constituency, but we are at our wit's end at present to deal with the container traffic from the Midlands and the North which goes across the Channel through Southampton or on to the international steamship lines. Consequently, we look forward to the fact that the Channel Tunnel will take some of the pressure off my constituency, whose roads are ill-prepared for any increase in container traffic. This matter can be reviewed under the next Conservative Government, so that the Minister will be able to take the right decision in terms of motorways from the Midlands.
Before hon. Members embark on this vital decision I wish to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 13.6 of the White Paper, which says this in terms of the next step we must take:
Britain cannot be economically and socially isolated from the Continent.
We must bear this in mind when we vote this evening.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: On one point at least I can agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill)—that the House has before it a major transport decision. There are several things we have to learn—and it looks as though they have not yet been learned by the Government in taking this decision.
The first lesson to be learned is that transport projects inevitably create their own demand. If this project is to include roll-on roll-off arrangements, we

can be certain that this will lead to a vast increase in tourist traffic in South-East England and also in the number of juggernauts coming into Britain via the South-East. Apart from that, we have to be prepared for a considerable increase in the building of warehouses for goods brought in by the juggernauts which will use the Channel Tunnel. I am very concerned about this matter, because in my constituency a number of warehouses have already been acquired to cater for the goods coming in via juggernaut lorries and, as one of the consequences of building this tunnel and the provision of roll-on roll-off facilities, I foresee a considerable increase in the number of warehouses that will appear in South-East London. I am further concerned about this matter, because the exit for lorries from the tunnel will be by the M20, which will bring a lot of lorries towards South-East London where, inevitably, large warehousing facilities will be required. South-East London is a large residential area, and the environment is polluted enough by the traffic which affects people in their daily lives, but it seems to me that in the plans which the Minister has put before us there is little or no provision for dealing with these environmental problems. In any decision we take we must bear in mind the fact that the consequences will go far beyond the immediate region in which the project is sited.
Other hon. Members, representing Swindon, the Midlands and Hull, have referred to the consequences for their constituencies. I do not see any overall appreciation of the consequences of this proposal for the economy of the country as a whole, and this gives me great cause for concern. After years of motorway building, and after the consequences which we have seen arise—some of them unexpected—I should have thought that the Department of the Environment would at least be seized of the fact that a major transport decision of this kind is bound to have considerable consequences some distance away from the project itself. I foresee grave environmental damage both to Kent and to residential constituencies in South London, and I am exceedingly worried about it.
I echo the words uttered by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby). I know his constituency well and I


understand the reasons why he must be concerned about the consequences of this decision for his constituency. Although analyses and a rather sketchy study have been made about the environment and about the economic consequences for the county of Kent, there appears to be no appreciation of the effects of this project on the country as a whole. Above all, the tunnel does not appear to be seen as part of a transport plan for Britain, including road and rail. The time for such a plan is surely overdue.
Other speakers have been right to emphasise the degree to which the resources of South-East England are likely to be affected as a consequence of the building of the tunnel. In constituencies such as my own, with grave housing shortages and inadequate roads, there seems to be a need for an overall plan to measure the degree to which it is sensible to commit resources to this project. I am almost certain that any such analysis would suggest the need to postpone this project until much more socially desirable schemes have been undertaken. I am therefore opposed to this project as it stands, and strongly opposed to the roll-on, roll-off facilities, because of the damage that is likely to be done to the environment of South-East England and South-East London.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: Because of the short time available to me, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) will forgive me if I do not follow all of what he said, and limit myself to one point which is of importance to my constituency. If we give this Bill a Second Reading tonight it is likely that work will start quite soon in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). If the Government proceed to the next and final stages it is likely that work will continue for five or six years. The work will be carried out at the Shakespeare Cliff, next to Dover, and at Cheriton, but however well organised it is—and I have no doubt that it will be very well organised—there are bound to be some unattractive side effects for those who live nearby. There will be the movement of men, machinery and materials, the problem of housing people who are

working on the site and, finally and inevitably, the problem of noise. All of these side effects will be felt primarily by residents in my constituency, on the Aycliffe estate and around Cheriton.
My right hon. Friend the Minister who will make the concluding speech, has been very sensitive to the needs of those of us who represent Kentish constituencies, but, inevitably with a long project, there will be all sorts of both small and large points of irritation and hardship to those living around. I therefore put it to him as a modest proposal that if an ad hoc committee could be formed, on which his Department, local authorities, local interests and the contractors were represented, it would be possible to deal expeditiously with points as they arise and even to anticipate the kind of problems that might arise. This is a very modest and practical proposal, which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept tonight, and it will reassure my constituents that their interests will be safeguarded while this great project proceeds.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I do not want to repeat anything that I have already said, and I shall speak with great delicacy because of the kindness shown to me by my right hon. Friend when I spoke in the last debate. When I went back to my constituency the following day, I was not exactly welcomed as a hero who had spoken up for Kent. I had spoken up for Kent because I was concerned, as all Kent Members are, with the attack on our environment. I am still concerned that there will be a great environmental impact on Kent, even in the first stage, when there is limited expenditure on tunnel exploration. The only point I want to make today is that I hope the Government will go out of their way to take such steps as are necessary to protect against the impact of this initial stage on the people of Kent. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) did not mention the question of spoil, which will be a very serious matter. Although the White Paper speaks of using the spoil to level out the ground at Cheriton, I hope that we can be given some assurances about the effects of this. When a quarry is being excavated there are problems of long lanes and


roads. I hope that this very important detail will not be overlooked.
There is one other matter which I must mention, because it does not seem to be properly covered in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to say what the Government, their contractors, and all those involved in the building of the first stage, will do if the project does not go ahead. I do not want it to be left as an eyesore which may cause people to say, "That is where they began to dig the Channel Tunnel in 1974. Come and see it. Is it not interesting?" I should not like a folly like that to be left—not that I think the tunnel itself is a folly, but I should like a positive assurance that money will be provided for tidying up if the project should be abandoned.
In checking back in the White Paper, I see that it is suggested that, depending on the materials available and the studies which are to be made by the engineers concerned, the tunnel will be lined with steel, cast iron or concrete. I hope it will not be concrete, because concrete will require aggregate and, to be economic, aggregate cannot be brought a great distance—usually not more than 25 miles. That means that aggregate would have to be dug from new quarries in Kent. This would be an absolutely horrific addition to the problem of building the tunnel. Therefore, I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that it would be preferable to line the tunnel not with concrete but with steel or cast iron.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will excuse me for not following his remarks, but I have one constituency point to raise.
As hon. Members know, I represent Battersea, South, in which is situated the main railway link from Clapham Junction to East Croydon. In view of the pressure now put on Wandsworth Common for a certain purpose, I should like the Minister to tell me whether the land at the side of the present track will be adequate for the two extra tracks. It seems to me that there is enough room for two extra tracks if they are put on either side of the present four tracks. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure

me that he will look into this point thoroughly before he allows the British Railways Board to make a decision I shall be happy, and so will my constituents.

6.32 p.m.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): Before I attempt to answer the detailed points which have been raised in this debate I should like to make four or five points by way of introduction.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) is not here at the moment. She dubbed this as my tunnel. With due humility, I must admit that it is not my tunnel. Quite a lot of people have had a part in the parentage of this project. Among them are many members of the previous administration. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was herself largely responsible for many of the arrangements which underlie the project today. Those for which I am responsible can be said to have been developed directly from what she very wisely did with, I may say, all the help and encouragement that could be given to her by the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition. As a Minister, I do not find it necessary to look for reasons for overturning everything that our predecessors did, but what I find slightly strange is that they should so readily disavow any responsibility for the arrangements.
We have been frequently questioned on the need for guarantees. The reasons are the same as when hon. Members opposite were in office, namely, that very large sums are involved. It would be cheaper to raise the money backed by Government guarantee and, of course, as a result of the guarantees the Government are given a very large share in the profits, and end up as the eventual owners. That seems to be a not unsound idea.
I say to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that if all the ideas of his administration were on that level hon. Members opposite might still be in office, because they seem to me to be redolent of common sense and perception. These are not always virtues which we associate with Labour Governments.

Sir John Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly how this project differs from North Sea oil and gas?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think it would be particularly helpful if I were to go into a long dissertation distinguishing the Channel Tunnel from North Sea exploration. What I have done is to set out the history of what seemed to me to be very good reasons for the guarantee, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept, with me, that for once the party opposite was not wholly misguided when in government.
I suggest that in considering this major project hon. Members might have in mind the fact that it is not always possible to go back to the beginning and make a fresh start. Certainly this is endemic in many speeches which we have heard on the project, and it seems to be very much a feature of life in this country today to want to go back and have another look at things. It makes the business of decision almost impossible, and it makes a habit of putting off decisions indefinitely with, I think, little profit or gain to our country.
Those who have opposed the Channel Tunnel have made very little, if any, reference to the growing traffic in the South-East which has to be dealt with. Some hon. Members would prefer to deal with it in other ways, but no one should ignore the fact that this traffic has grown at a horrifying rate and will continue to do so, and we have got to make arrangements to cope with it. What we are seeking to do, and what the Government, along with those who are responsible for the project, believe we should do, is to adopt the most efficient and convenient and the least damaging means.
May I say particularly to the hon. Member for Wolverhamption, North-East—I mention this aspect last, although it is not the least important—that this project has the prospect of being very profitable. Surely that has some advantages, even from her point of view. Without profitable projects, how can the other desirable things to which she referred so eloquently be financed? I also hope the House will bear in mind what one or two hon. Members have mentioned, namely, that this scheme should be a

source of substantial benefit to British Railways.
I hope I have answered the point raised by the right hon. Member for Sheffield Park, about guarantees. I was under the impression that I had dealt with this in the previous debate; I apologise if I did not do so. Let me make it clear that the £120 million for financing the new link from the coast to London will be provided by means of a loan from the National Loans Fund to British Railways, and I stress that it will not be part of British Railways' normal investment programme at all. It will be quite separate from it and in addition to it.

Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that clear. I must, however, modify a little my enthusiasm for it, because I had hoped and understood that it might have been a grant. I understand now that it will be an additional debt for British Railways to service, and this is worrying. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reconsider this aspect of the matter.

Mr. Peyton: I think the right hon. Gentleman would have been exceedingly surprised if it had been a grant. It would have been a new break in customs under any administration. I am sure that I would have to search history very hard to find any record of such generosity under the previous Government.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about rolling stock. Detailed arrangements are being made with railways all over the Continent for British rolling stock to have free access. On the return journey continental rolling stock, which is of different loading gauge from our own facilities, will be provided, by means of a new link, with free and unimpeded access to White City. After that it will have to comply with the physical conditions of the British system. There is no question of British Rail's being obliged, at huge financial cost, to undertake works to accommodate continental rolling stock all over our system.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) has cogent reasons for disliking the tunnel. I am writing to him about many of the detailed points he raised. He said that this is a case of nineteenth century technology. I challenge him on that. It is, in


fact, updated and not outdated technology.
My hon. Friend said that we were committed by this Bill to the whole expenditure, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). We are not committed any further than we say. I accept that there will be added commitments the further we go down the road. At any time—and this is the answer to one question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers)—any party to the project is free to abandon it. The terms of abandonment have been arranged so that the loss is divided equally between the two Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South went on to express concern about the railway line going through his constituency. I accept what he says and sympathise with him about the danger of planning blight, but it would have been wrong, and greatly resented by the House, for British Rail to have undertaken extensive examination works at least until Parliament had approved the project in principle. We have this approval, and I have been engaged in discussions with British Rail. British Rail will undertake urgent examination of alternative routes and make its plans public as early as possible, with a view to having them enshrined in an Act of Parliament. A great deal more detail is needed both by British Rail and, I accept, by my hon. Friend's constituents. He asked about the speed at which trains could be driven underground. The answer is that there will be a 100 m.p.h. maximum speed limit in the tunnel. I recognise that the railway line is a great problem for his constituents and for those of other hon. Members whose constituencies it will pass through, but I assure the House and my hon. Friend that these matters will be considered with care and sympathy.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Tomney) asked about compensation. Now that the 1973 Act is available, much more generous terms can be offered. I assure him that the greatest care will be taken by British Rail, my Department and me to see that inconvenience and hardship are avoided wherever possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to the cost. The esti-

mates are the best and most up-to-date ones that we can make. They take account of both interest charges during the construction period and inflation. He, like others, argued for a railway-only tunnel. British Rail, which has not canvassed a rail-only tunnel, recognises that there are great advantages to it from the proposed project. A railway-only tunnel would cost 30 per cent. less and the operating costs would be less, but, so, too, would the traffic and the profits be very much less and would start later. Worst of all, we should still be left with the problem of having to cater for the immense growth of traffic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham admitted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), there is still an acute and growing traffic problem in Dover and Folkestone.
If the Government were to make a lot of money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham suggested, my only answer is that it would be very agreeable, and I have no doubt that many hon. Members, and even right hon. Members, would have an agreeable time deciding what to do with it. When my hon. Friend advocated a Government-owned railway-only tunnel I thought the sound of his voice must be coming to me by echo from the other side of the House.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is to be congratulated on being remarkably consistent. He has been an implacable opponent of a bored rail tunnel under the Channel during the period of both administrations and, as such, he has been unique. Most of the opponents of the tunnel have been gained with a change of Government. Labour Members who were willing to support it before have conveniently forgotten that fact. I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was complaining that the tunnel would be under Government influence, if not Government control, but with a project of this importance it is almost inevitable that the Government should have a major influence.
The intention is that the tunnel should be commercially operated. The hon. Gentleman has frequently suggested that there should be not a bored tunnel but a bridge.

Mr. Sheldon: No.

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman. He has


said that insufficient examination has been made of alternatives. Such detailed examination is enormously expensive and is a long drawn-out process. All those who are engaged in the present project are united in believing that it is the best, the most efficient and the most economic.
Before too many condemnatory opinions are expressed about engineering capabilities and techniques, we might all recognise that RTZ is not unknown in this field. It has a distinguished record and its judgment is entitled to be respected by the House. That such a firm is involved in the project is a source of confidence to me.
I repeat to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) what I have said previously—that expenditure on the infrastructure in the North-East compares very favourably with that in any other part of the country, and I will be glad to give any supporting figures he asks for.
In the time of the previous Conservative Government, Lord Hailsham went to the North-East and laid the foundations for a considerable road programme, which has brought in its wake a magnificent increase in industrial development. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to ignore that. I can give him at least one figure now. Taking together trunk and motorway schemes which have been opened since 1970, those currently under construction and those in planning, the total investment in the Northern Region will amount to £234 million—a very substantial sum.

Sir Robin Turton: Although that road programme was started under Lord Hailsham, the motorway from Teesside to the A1 link has not yet been completed, and we have been waiting for it for seven years.

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend must know that great progress has been made in the North-East, and that it will continue to be made. He knows what the plans are, and if he is anxious for further information I shall be happy to supply it.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: On three occasions I have listened to the Minister saying how well the North-East has been treated. Does not he agree that under successive Gov-

ernments the North-East has been neglected and that although it is now doing better, it is not doing as well as it should be doing?

Mr. Peyton: No area, in the eyes of those who represent it, is ever doing as well as it should be doing. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about past arrears regarding development in the North-East, but great progress is now being made there.
I turn now to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. At the beginning of my speech, I pointed out that this project can hardly be described as "my" tunnel. I would be very happy if anyone gave the tunnel to me as a present, but I do not believe that the bounty of even the hon. Lady is capable of such munificent action.

Mrs. Renée Short: It is Peyton's tunnel.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Lady also commented on the inadequacy of road links between the Midlands and East Coast ports. The A45 is currently being comprehensively improved. Only when this Government came into office was there a firm commitment to and a recognition of the need to provide adequate roads connecting the ports with the industrial areas, and we are making substantial progress in this respect
The point that the hon. Lady raised about aggregate is genuine and important. A large part of the tunnel would be lined with concrete. This point is dealt with in paragraph 9.9 of die White Paper, which the hon. Lady has doubtless read, and that is why she so wisely made the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) made a speech with which I totally agree. I hope my remarks do not embarrass him, but he made an excellent, sensible speech. He alone made the point that the costs of alternative schemes would be higher, as would the risk. He asked whether some of the money with which we are now concerned would be devoted to thorough surveys. Whatever else the project may have suffered from, it has not suffered from a lack of thorough and lengthy surveys. I can assure my hon. Friend that the surveys which are now needed, covering, for instance, the marketing of railway services, could not have been done


until now. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that the railways stand to gain from improved communications.
I also entirely agree with my hon. Friend's view that the advocates of a rail-only tunnel ignore the facts of life. He reminded the House—and this needs to be said from time to time—that people who own cars have, oddly enough, a strong wish to use them.
My hon. Friend also asked about the speeding up of the final operation. The more thorough the preparatory work, the more reliable will be the programme of construction, if and when it is undertaken.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) advocated, with his customary eloquence, that we should check up on the consultants. That is a very good recipe for doing nothing, because we checkup on the checkers-up, and the process is endless.
I have already dealt with the abandonment point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The details of the budget of phase 2 will in due course be published.
I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), which seem to be general throughout the country, but he did not apply his considerable intelligence to the question of what he would do with the existing traffic problem in the South-East, which is becoming terrible.
I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover will challenge the fact that I have always been conscious that many points of irritation are likely to arise in the course of so complicated and long drawn out a project. I hope I can convince him that I will spare no pains to see that these points of irritation are dealt with promptly and removed.
My hon. and learned Friend suggested that some sort of committee should be set up. I would prefer to avoid any too formal arrangement. I have already got

satisfactory informal arrangements with Kent and Surrey county councils from the point of view of the railways and I have also undertaken to go down there at regular intervals and hold a special meeting, at part of which at any rate members of the public could perhaps be admitted and anyone would be free to ask questions. I am determined to establish as well as I can arrangements which make sure that people's grievances and causes of anxiety are removed as quickly as possible wherever possible.

The answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) is, "Yes". I am assured by the railways that there is enough land but I would like to confirm it more formally when the railways take a detailed look at the matter. I can certainly assure him that the railways will study the matter very carefully, although quickly.

I am dreadfully sorry that when my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury went home after his splendid speech last time he was not welcomed as a hero. This fate, unhappily, befalls Members of Parliament from time to time. They are not always as well and generously reminded as they wish of the good deeds they perform. It is the errors and omissions of which our constituents are so disagreeably conscious all too often, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend, who is so distinguished a man, should have been treated like them on this occasion.

But if I may say so, my hon. Friend has really been looking backward. Here he has found himself tortured with the nightmare that at the end of the day, when the project had all fallen to pieces, somebody would leave the relics on the South Coast and no-one would go down there with a dustpan and brush to clear them up. I assure him that if no one else will, I will.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes, 176, Noes, 125.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Blaker, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert


Astor, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Humphrey
Benyon, W.
Bray, Ronald




Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Higgins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, S. James A. (Southampton, Test)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rost, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Royle, Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Coombs, Derek
Joplin, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooper, A. E.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kershaw, Anthony
Simeons, Charles


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Kinsey, J. R.
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lamont, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Loveridge, John
Tapsell, Peter


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Temple, John M.


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fidler, Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Foster, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernle
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gardner, Edward
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Warren, Kenneth


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhart, Philip
Normanton, Tom
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gray, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Winterton, Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Osborn, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peel, Sir John



Hannam, John (Exeter)
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haselhurst, Alan
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Marcus Fox.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kaufman, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Russell


Austick, David
Freud, Clement
Kinnock, Neil


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lamborn, Harry


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lawson, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Golding, John
Leonard, Dick


Bishop, E. S.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Lipton, Marcus


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harper, Joseph
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hatton, F.
Meacher, Michael


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Coleman, Donald
Hooson, Emlyn
Mikardo, Ian


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mudd, David


Davidson, Arthur
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oakes, Gordon


Deakins, Eric
John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Douglas-Mann, Bruce









Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Torney, Tom


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, George


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stallard, A. W.
Watkins, David


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Steel, David
Weitzman, David


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Richard, Ivor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)
Sutcliffe, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taverne, Dick



Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roper, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tope, Graham

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Clegg.]

Committee tomorrow.

CHANNEL TUNNEL (INITIAL FINANCE) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make financial provision in relation to preliminary work on or in connection with the construction of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury in relation to money borrowed for the purpose of providing finance for such preliminary work subject to a limit of £35 million in so far as the sums are required for the repayment of principal, and the payment into that Fund of sums received in pursuance of arrangements with the French Government towards the fulfilment of guarantees so given;
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be so required for contributing, in accordance with those arrangements, towards the fulfilment of guarantees given by or on behalf of the French Government in relation to money borrowed for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (1) above subject to a limit of £17·5 million in so far as the payments relate to the repayment of principal;
(3) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required to meet any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in carrying out studies connected with the construction of such a tunnel system; Or
(b) in fulfilling any obligations or exercising any rights (including any obligation or right to acquire securities of a body corporate) which become his in consequence of the abandonment of the preliminary work on the construction of such a tunnel system.

RHODESIA

7.13 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, which gives Her Majesty in Council power to take whatever measures are necessary to deal with the situation in Southern Rhodesia brought about by the unilateral declaration of independence. Among the Orders in Council made under the section are, of course, those containing the various sanctions measures.
It is disappointing that, after so many years, it remains necessary to make a continuation order yet again. But I am convinced that, in the circumstances, it is right and necessary, and I shall explain briefly why I think that is so.
When the report of the Pearce Commission was published last year, I told the House that we ought to provide time for the people of Rhodesia to reflect on their future. I said that I hoped that there would be consultations between the races in an effort to reach agreement among themselves. While it is, naturally, frustrating to us here in Britain that progress in this direction has been so slow, nevertheless some progress has been made. The situation now is noticeably different from what it was a year ago, and this is certainly not the moment to give up hope.
It is important to keep clearly in mind what our objectives are and what is the goal we wish to reach. I doubt whether anyone would dispute my description of


the goal which we wish to reach—the creation of the conditions in which an act of legislation would bring Rhodesia into a legal relationship with Britain again and once more into the community of nations. To that end we must be able to give Rhodesia independence in a form which will be broadly acceptable to the people of Rhodesia, black and white. A settlement which does not command that support will not last. I believe that this is increasingly being accepted inside Rhodesia, by Rhodesians, African and European.
For this reason, we have concluded that the best, and indeed the only practical, course at this stage is for Rhodesians themselves to try to work out their own solutions to their own problems. I do not, after all these years, underestimate the difficulty of the task which confronts them. This is a country in which there have not been political contacts between black and white on any substantial scale. Perhaps we should not be surprised. After all, we have a parallel in Northern Ireland on our own doorstep. But I believe that they are now making a real effort to tackle this problem. We remain ready to help as and when we can, but meanwhile the important point is that we should do nothing here in Britain which might make yet more difficult the task of creating a constitution by Rhodesians for Rhodesians.
I have seen it suggested in Rhodesia that Britain is no longer interested in achieving a settlement. I do not know why it should be thought that it could be to Britain's advantage to continue one day longer than is necessary the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. At any rate I should like to dismiss any such idea lest it linger on and gain currency. We are as determined as we ever were, in spite of the difficulties, to see a satisfactory settlement in Rhodesia achieved. Measures which get us only half way there will not do. But the British Government remain committed to achieving a settlement in Rhodesia in accordance with the five principles to which we have always adhered
Therefore, how do we help the Rhodesians to get a settlement? One question is how far the 1971 proposals should stay in the picture. That will be for discussion and decision between the

those who are talking in Rhodesia. All I need to say is that they contained very valuable advances on the present Rhodesian constitution—for example, a justiciable Declaration of Right, a commission to investigate and recommend on the elimination of racial discrimination, improvements in the franchise system related to membership of the Parliament, and progress towards a common roll and towards majority rule. These advantages should not be lost. It must be for Rhodesians, European and African alike, to see what they wish to keep and how they want to add to those elements in those proposals which were to their advantage.
While these processes of discussion go forward in Rhodesia, our task in Britain at this stage is to hold the ring so that there is the least possible disturbance to them from outside—whether from Britain, the United Nations or other African countries and organisations. It is in this context that the discontinuance or maintenance of sanctions has to be decided. Their impact is indecisive in political terms, but there can be no doubt that if they were lifted there would be so strong an emotional reaction inside and outside Rhodesia that thoughts about a settlement in that country would come to an abrupt end.
I have often been asked by the Opposition whether sanctions can be made to bite any harder. Certainly there is room for improvement in the performance of a number of other countries. Some of the major trading nations have recently shown an interest in improving their domestic controls. It has been suggested—I think by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—that we should raise the subject of sanctions breaking in the EEC Council of Ministers. I have considered this, but breaches of sanctions are invariably action taken by individual companies in individual countries. Every member of the community has legislation under which sanctions are imposed. When we receive an indication that a breach of sanctions may have occured, as well as informing the committee of the United Nations which is set up to deal with these matters, we bring it to the notice of the Government of the country concerned. That is the only authority which can have influence on the firm which


may be breaking sanctions. That is the right way to handle these matters, directly with the Governments who are responsible for the application in their own countries.
I said earlier that the situation in Rhodesia had changed—

Mr. Neil Marten: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, may I put something to him? I have supported these sanctions orders, rightly or wrongly, on every occasion when they have come before the House. What I question now is the toughness with which the British Government are dealing with questions of sanctions in the Council of Ministers. I do not believe that this subject has been inscribed on the agenda for the Council of Ministers meeting. It was not on the agenda of the last meeting. What I would like to have from the Government before I can agree to support them again is an assurance that they will place it on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Ministers and will be really tough about it. If these other countries do not take action against their own sanction breakers, in Germany, France, Italy and so on, I want the Government to say that they will place their own sanctions upon them in the EEC.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must say that is an interesting suggestion coming from my hon. Friend. I hope that on some other matters he will support the unity of the Community and other unified action. If my hon. Friend is interested in getting the sanctions to apply, it is the Governments of each country which have to do this, if they have the necessary powers over their industry.

Mr. David Steel: The Foreign Secretary has, naturally, spoken of commerce and trading sanctions and the loopholes in them. Would he not agree that perhaps the most important sanction and the least publicised is the denial to Rhodesia of the international money markets, and that we ought not to pass this renewal order tonight without stressing the important effect of that?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think it is the one sanction that is biting. It certainly is the most important sanction

in relation to Rhodesia, if one supports the sanctions policy.
I said earlier that the situation in Rhodesia had changed substantially over the past year. I also explained my conviction that the best, if not the only, hope for a peaceful future for Rhodesia lies in consultation and ultimately in agreement between Rhodesians themselves. A year ago there was almost no consultation in Southern Rhodesia. Now a great deal is going on. I must not exaggerate this but some is going on. Mr. Smith told his party conference in September that he was in touch with African leaders.
He and Bishop Muzorewa, the President of the African National Council, have held discussions together. They are, quite rightly, for the time being keeping the details to themselves. But if agreement is to come it is essential that those two must work the change. I understand that consultations between the authorities and the ANC are to continue. The national executive of the ANC unanimously endorsed the holding of such consultations at a meeting on 13th October, something which would have been inconceivable a year ago. In Rhodesian terms the fact that such consultations are being held at all is a considerable step in the right direction.
Consultations are also going ahead at other levels. The African National Council and the new Rhodesia Party have been meeting and have published 12 agreed principles for a multi-racial society. The recently elected leader of the Rhodesian Party, Mr. Savory, called on me in London last month and told me that his party hopes to continue the discussions and to reach further agreements with the ANC.
That again is new. Although we must never under-estimate the difficulties which lie ahead, and I would be the last person to do that, we should certainly not give up just as it seems that progress may be becoming possible. If we decided now not to continue the sanctions, we should be signalling to Rhodesians that we had indeed abandoned hope. We should be turning our backs on those who are striving for agreement between the races, an agreement which would give a chance for


a peaceful and prosperous future for Rhodesia and all its people, and an agreement which would open the way to the very settlement which all of us have all along sought.
At this time the right thing to do is to pass this order again, disappointed as we may be. We should be ensuring, if we did not pass it, that the moderates would give up hope and that those who would be left to make the running would be the extremists on both sides, with all that that would entail in terms of increasing confrontation and violence in Rhodesia, which is bad enough now.
It is for these reasons that I ask the House to approve the order.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I want to say how much we on the Labour benches agree with the last part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Broadly speaking his approach is absolutely correct. It is that at this stage, given the developments that seem to be taking place within Rhodesia, it would be foolhardy in the extreme to alter the pressures that seem to have produced that movement. Doing the best I can with the views of hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative benches who have opposed sanctions for many years, I must say that it seems illogical to say that sanctions will not work and will produce no political effect in Rhodesia at the very moment when there is evidence that some political effect is being produced there. It is the height of illogicality and irrationality now to say that we shall remove the sanctions which are the very pressures that are producing movement.
On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to associate myself with a great deal of what the Foreign Secretary said. The only point of real dispute between the two of us arises from what he said in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I would not go as far as the hon. Gentleman in imposing sanctions against the E.E.C. if it did not fall in with our policy of sanctions in respect of Rhodesia. I am not absolutely certain how far the hon. Gentleman was serious in putting that proposition forward. There is a strong feeling on this side of the House, which I share, that our Common Market partners are not playing the game with the Rhodesian policy.
There is evidence that some European countries, if not acquiescing in the policy of sanction breaking by some firms are, perhaps, not being so vigorous in pursuing sanction breakers as we—as members of the Community and of the United Nations, and subject therefore to the resolutions of that body—are entitled to expect. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Banbury said when he urged his right hon. Friend to raise this as specific item on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels. I cannot see what harm it would do, and it might produce some benefit.
We have this debate annually on the renewal of the sanctions order. We have renewed it for eight or nine years. Predictably, whichever party has the responsibility for asking the House for renewal indulges in a certain amount of stocktaking on the question whether sanctions are, to use the current phrase, biting on Rhodesia—I am not quite sure what that term means in that context—whether sanctions are having an economic or political effect on the Rhodesian situation. During the last three years there has usually been a plea from the right hon. Gentleman for his hon. and right hon. Friends on the back benches to trust him for yet another year to see whether he can produce the settlement in the next 12 months, although he has not been able to produce one in the past 36 months.
Our view about the sanctions policy is somewhat tougher and less pusillanimous than that of the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say to him that we should now move away from this idea of renewing the sanctions order annually. [Interruption.] I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with me, but at least they might do me the courtesy of listening.
Is it clear that both sides of the House are in broad agreement that the policy of sanctions in Rhodesia should continue until there is a political settlement in Rhodesia which is acceptable to the Rhodesian people, both black and white, and also to the House of Commons? If that is right, and if that is the principle which unites us all—and I believe that it does—why do we have to go through this farce, every November, of the right hon. Gentleman getting up and saying,


"It has had some effect during the last 12 months, let us give it another 12 months to see what happens"?
We all know that if, at the end of November 1974, we are still in the same position as we are this evening, exactly the same policy will be put forward by whichever party occupies the Government Front Bench, and exactly the same policy will be supported by whichever party is in opposition. Would not it be more realistic, honest, sensible and effective, not to go through this spasm—which has an international effect, because each year the Rhodesia Front sits in Salisbury and says, "Well now, is there really going to be a major political row in the House of Commons this year so as to overturn the sanctions policy of the British Government?" This can only create a greater degree of uncertainty as to what our policy is, and as to what British intentions in Rhodesia actually are.
I therefore make a plea to the Government that between now and next time we have to go through this charade—

Mr. Evelyn King: rose—

Mr. Richard: If I can just finish my abuse I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Before we go through this charade again next November, perhaps the Government should think about introducing legislation—if this is needed, and I think it probably is under the 1965 Act—so that we can enact a policy of sanctions towards Rhodesia once and for all and that policy can be pursued until the objectives that hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed upon are brought to fruition.

Mr. Evelyn King: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept that one of the reasons why the opinion of the House of Commons is not fully understood outside is that this debate is always held at a late hour on a Thursday night, when most hon. Members have gone home, and that it is deliberately done, so that the real opinion of the House of Commons seldom emerges.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time, and has sat on the Government and the Oppo-

sition benches. From all the experience that he has garnered during his years in the House he surely does not think that Members of Parliament are so weak and cowardly as that. It is, after all, only 7.33 p.m. It is a Thursday evening, but I have no doubt that all the hon. Gentlemen present tonight, consistent in their views over the years, and firm in their conviction—or lack of it—will at the end of the day, whenever it comes, show a demonstration from the Government benches of the strength of opinion that they feel against the policy that has been so ably put forward this evening by their Front Bench.
If there is to be a rebellion, let us not excuse the smallness of the vote and the paucity of the number of the rebels by saying that it has been put on too late, and that our rebels are so firm and grave that if only it had been put on on a Wednesday evening, at 5.30 p.m., we would have had another 30 rebels, but because it was put on at 7.30 p.m. on a Thursday we can muster only 25 or 30. With great respect, I do not think the argument stands up to much examination.
This evening, together with other hon. Members, I shall look forward with great interest to see exactly how many hon. Members on the Government side follow the hon. Gentleman and his friends into the Lobby this evening against a policy of renewing sanctions. I do not think that there will be many on this side of the House. With as much sincerity as I can muster at this late hour on a Thursday evening, I merely state that if the Government find themselves in need of support in the Lobby this evening in order to do down the massive rebellion that is apparently likely to take place from the benches below the Gangway—all 25 paper warriors who sit there this evening—they can rely upon the support of myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends. We shall be happy, contented—indeed, enthusiastic—to vote in favour of a policy renewing sanctions for another 12 months.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Richard: Does the hon. and learned Member insist?

Mr. Bell: Yes.

Mr. Richard: Very well.

Mr. Bell: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that one form of opposition to the proposal before the House among some hon. Members on the Government benches will be abstention, whereas the absence of hon. Members opposite from the Lobby will just be plain absence.

Mr. Richard: Abstention is the last refuge of the weak. On an occasion when the Whips are not imposed on one side of the House it would be wrong of the hon. and learned Member to claim that all those who did not vote tonight abstained on his side of the argument rather than on the other side of the argument. Inertia is frequently a much more potent parliamentary weapon than is the conviction of not wishing to vote for the Government on Rhodesia sanctions.
I turn to two practical arguments which may appeal to some of the practical gentlemen sitting below the Gangway. There is now no economic case which would benefit Great Britain by lifting sanctions. There is no economic case which stands examination for the removal of sanctions against Rhodesia. I am talking not of the economic effect that sanctions have in Rhodesia but of the economic effect on Great Britain's trading and investment position in the world, and in Africa in particular, if sanctions were to be raised other than as part of a general agreement acceptable to the majority of Africans in Rhodesia. If we were to lift sanctions we should be taking an economic risk which would be unjustifiable and might prove extremely damaging.
If one looks at United Kingdom direct investment in sub-Saharan Africa—and we should not confine our sights wholly to Rhodesia—one gets this pattern: there is about £98 million worth of British investment in Rhodesia and there is £141 million worth in Nigeria, excluding the oil investment. Oil from Nigeria now accounts for about 10 per cent. of British imports of that commodity. In view of the oil situation in the Middle East, it is not unpertinent to consider what the effects on our oil position might be if we were to pursue a policy in relation to Rhodesia which proved unacceptable to the majority of Africans in the rest of Africa.
In other Commonwealth countries in Africa, British investment amounts to £201 million. British investment in other African countries amounts to £101 million. There is £647 million worth of British investment in South Africa, £98 million worth in Rhodesia and £450 million worth in the rest of black Africa.
The economic background of sanctions was recently examined in a very perceptive article in The World Today, of September this year, by Mr. Michael Williams and Mr. Michael Parsonage. Their conclusion was expressed as follows:
It must be emphasised that Rhodesia is only one of a number of under-developed countries in the area and, with few exceptions, British companies would be willing to lose their interests there to safeguard the lusher pastures to the north. For it is in black Africa that the future must lie. Reserves of labour and resources have hardly been touched, and the larger population concentrations provide ample opportunity for local market expansion on the basis of the surplus from the mineral and agricultural sectors. In addition, the strategic importance of many of Africa's commodities and the likelihood of large new mineral deposits make it essential to maintain British interests in the area. The growing Nigerian oil industry, which now provides 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's consumption (together with the possibility of large reserves elsewhere) adds a sense of urgency to this conclusion. This argument now seems to be widely accepted by British industry, at least for the long run.
They continued:
…there is no economic case for the removal of sanctions in advance of a settlement that is acceptable to African opinion. At first sight the maintenance of sanctions appears to be an unattractive option, but to lift them would produce few gains. British companies would regain contact with their subsidiaries, but this is unlikely to affect overall profitability, and the trade links lost to the sanctions-breakers will be hard to re-establish.
Their final words were:
The political wisdom and moral propriety of the argument against sanctions has always been in doubt. In the present article we have tried to strengthen the new realisation that there is also no economic case for their removal. Indeed, it is being argued in some circles that sanctions should be reimposed indefinitely. This would go a long way towards establishing Britain's commitment to black Africa and to avoiding the embarrassing international consequences of the annual policy debate. Pressures for a settlement can now only come from within Rhodesia, and there is some evidence to suggest that continuing economic and psychological isolation will bring a political change. In the long run, Rhodesia will be recognised for the small country that she is.

Mr. Piers Dixon: The House is probably very impressed by the figures that the hon. and learned Gentleman has given of hundreds of millions of pounds, no doubt representing the book value of British investments in those countries. The hon. and learned Gentleman has read a most impressive passage, but what is his personal view about the true market value of those investments? Whether there are sanctions or not, does he not think that there is a serious possibility of their being confiscated in large quantities, anyway?

Mr. Richard: Of course there is a possibility that individual nations will pursue policies which are inimical to British economic or political interests. But that is so anywhere else, and, in any event, Rhodesia is doing precisely that.
What is interesting about Rhodesia's economic history over the past eight years is that she has transferred her markets away from the United Kingdom and elsewhere. All the evidence now is that if sanctions were lifted the people who would benefit would be the sanction breakers. They are the people who have cashed in, evading United Nations resolutions over the last eight years, and who would benefit from the removal of economic sanctions. I cannot see the morality, the propriety or the common sense of that.
I accept that there are dangers in investment in under-developed parts of the world. That danger exists everywhere. We are talking not about the possibility of investment in the future but about the £457 million of investment which has already taken place in black Africa. Is it worth risking £457 million in order to safeguard a doubtful £98 million? That seems to be an argument of practicality which should appeal to some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. In the last five or six years we have heard a great deal of nonsense about the effect of economic sanctions on this country, but there are some hard figures which show that the economic case is not made out.
Indeed, all the economic arguments go in the opposite direction. The main economic arguments go in favour of maintaining sanctions—I am talking about the United Kingdom, and not

economic arguments for Rhodesia and, if possible, intensifying sanctions, even if it needs to be done by deliberately moving British investment away from what was in Rhodesia and what might be in Rhodesia in the future and putting it into what the article calls "the lusher pastures" of the rest of Africa.
I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) is about to rise. I am sure that other hon. Members will rise, too. Before they do, let me say that I accept that there are arguments contrary to mine. If the hon. and gallant Member is going to say that there are arguments on the other side which may carry conviction, I accept that. None the less the balance of the economic advantage to the United Kingdom is now overwhelmingly in favour of retaining sanctions rather than removing them. I defy any hon. Gentleman—and I put it as high as that—who is in favour of removing sanctions now by denying the Government the order to disprove that argument.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: What is it in the hon. and learned Gentleman's ideology that makes him prepared to trade only with black or white Africa? Is that not a policy of despair? Is not the true path of statesmanship to attempt to trade with both?

Mr. Richard: There are two answers. First, I am not at present inclined to trade with Rhodesia. It is a country which has torn up—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Ah!

Mr. Richard: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Ah!" in his profound way; if only he would listen for a minute through his lowing. I am not inclined to trade with Rhodesia. It is a country which has deliberately torn up constitutional arangements entered into with the United Kingdom Government and has turned its back on constitutional development in favour of unconstitutional development. My second asnwer when the hon. and gallant Gentleman accuses me of wishing to trade only with black Africa is that I have said nothing about British investment in South Africa. The only figure I gave was the figure of £647 million for current investment.
If one takes British investment in South Africa into the argument, one can still


claim an overwhelming preponderance of economic advantage from concentrating our economic priorities in areas where we have the greater economic interest.

Mr. Harold Soref: rose—

Mr. Richard: No, all hon. Gentlemen opposite are familiar faces in these debates and I have no doubt that they have an opportunity to make speeches of depth, significance and interest. If they will forgive me, I shall not give way again, because I fear that I have been on my feet too long already.
The second limb of the economic argument is to question the economic effect of sanctions on Rhodesia. It is interesting to look at what is being said in Rhodesian journals. The Financial Mail which deals with the position of Rhodesian industries, states that
Hampered by the foreign exchange shortage Rhodesian industry ended the first half of 1973 on a sour note.
There is a table showing that the industries in Rhodesia are doing worse this year than last. That is not something I rejoice in, but it is idle for hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those below the Gangway, to argue that sanctions should not be maintained, on the basis that they are not having any effect in Rhodesia, when one can see from the figures that Rhodesian industries are not as prosperous as they were.
One specific industry shows that it is because of the imposition of sanctions that extreme economic pressure has been produced in that industry. An article headed:
Not Cottoned On" states that
It's happened again. Rhodesians keep finding that economic oportunities are just beyond their reach because they cannot get foreign currency to import machinery. This time it's the cotton industry. For the want of R$30m. the cost of increasing Rhodesia's present spinning and weaving capacity to five times its present level, the country is missing out on the cotton boom.
One could go through the list of industries in Rhodesia—the metal industry and the metal manufacturing industries—and see that the effect of sanctions over a long period of time is having not a political but an economic effect. I wish hon. Members would face that. They may have good political arguments about sanctions, but to argue that they are not having an economic

effect in Rhodesia is absolute and utter nonsense. They ought to accept that fact.
What is the political effect that we are trying to achieve? It is a settlement which is acceptable to all races in Rhodesia and is capable of being accepted by this House within the principles that both sides of the House have emphasised and re-emphasised. Is there any possibility of this happening at the moment? In the last 12 months there have been signs that were not present before.
To a certain extent, I share the Foreign Secretary's optimism about what is beginning to happen in Rhodesia. The Rhodesian Party and the African National Council's 12 principles agreement is a remarkable document, not only because it is an agreement between black and white groupings but because the African Council has clearly abandoned any immediate claim to majority rule. I do not think that many hon. Gentlemen can have read the 12 principles. They mention "A joint co-operative effort in development"; "Law and order with justice'"; "Constitutional protection against racialism and racial domination"; "'Total' power to be excluded"; "A constitutional council and a council of State for protecting essential constitutional rights'"; "Multi-party parliamentary elections"; "A non-racial common roll' qualified franchise"; "'Natural' expansion of the electorate in line with the country's economic growth"; "Protection of minority race groups in a non-racial' parliament"; "Preservation of the free enterprise' system"—which will appeal to a few hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite; "Elimination of racial discrimination in public life"; "Freedom of cultural association".
It is significant that when the negotiations took place between the Rhodesia Party and the Africa National Council, one of the Rhodesia Party's negotiators, Dr. Charles Morris, said that he
found himself 'absolutely shattered by the complete reasonableness' of the ANC".
The developments that are beginning to take place in Rhodesia may prove to be of great significance.
Let me give two other examples. I do not know how significant they are, or whether they are large straws in the wind. Mr. Harper—a gentleman not


exactly noted in Rhodesia for his progressive views—has recently said:
There is no sense in being blind to the fact that Africans…
in Rhodesia
…are…today a political factor.
Lord Graham, who will be known to many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, has urged that
a completely new constitution be drawn up in consultation with all African opinion.
On the face of that evidence it cannot be sensibly argued that economic sanctions are not worth keeping on for the United Kingdom, when they are clearly proving an economic pressure on Rhodesia. The result of that economic pressure and Rhodesia's international isolation seems to be that political movements are taking place in Rhodesia. In our opinion it would be the height of folly not to give the Government this order tonight.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said that it would be an economic advantage to this country to keep in with black Africa and to continue sanctions against Rhodesia. In economic terms, of course, he is right. What interests me is that he and his colleagues were standing that argument on its head the other day when they accused the Government of being blackmailed by the Arabs to take action against Israel on the threat of an oil boycott and said that this was immoral. So we have an exactly opposite argument being produced on successive days.
Figures can be made to prove anything, but, as we have had certain figures quoted, let me briefly quote some others. They are somewhat similar to the hon. and learned Gentleman's, but lead me to reach a different conclusion. British investment in southern Africa is some £740 million. In the whole of black Africa, excluding the Arab countries, it is £352 million plus some £150 million for Nigeria's oil. Therefore, the advantage of investment is in favour of southern Africa.

Mr. Richard: The flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that £640 million of that investment is in South Africa and not in Rhodesia. That investment

has remained in South Africa despite the fact that, if the hon. Gentleman is right, we have in the last eight years pursued policies in southern Africa grossly inimical to the interests of the South African Government. The investment is already there and has to be ignored in the equation.

Mr. Wall: I have already conceded to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that we have a greater investment and economic interest in black Africa than we have in that little country called Rhodesia. That is obvious to anybody. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew the conclusion that if we have to choose between southern Africa—which he called white Africa—and black Africa, it is to our economic advantage to choose black Africa. That is totally wrong, because in terms of investment we have almost twice as much interest in the south though the trade figures slightly favour black Africa if one includes oil. But if one allows for the fact that black Africa tends to take over our industries or businesses with little or no compensation and one adds a figure for security or the safety factor of our investments in the south, one will find that our economic advantage is bound up with the south rather than the north.
I must be honest and admit that if I were in my right hon. Friend's shoes as Foreign Secretary, I should probably be reintroducing the order. I have not much faith in the argument that it is a lever to push the Europeans to make concessions to the Africans. But I have a great deal of faith in the argument, which my right hon. Friend touched upon in his opening speech, that as long as we claim the right to control Rhodesia, whether that right is apparent or imaginary, we act as a buffer in the United Nations and so prevent a government in exile from being formed.
There was recently much nonsense talked about Portuguese Guinea when the United Nations General Assembly recognised a small group of rebels which controlled a minute fraction of the country as the government of that country. As long as we have the policy which is maintained by the order, we can act as a buffer in the case of nonsense of that kind being applied to Rhodesia.

Captain Walter Elliot: I should like to introduce a cautionary note.


ZANU and ZAPU have both been given observer status at the United Nations, as was the party from Guinea Besau which went on to be recognised. The writing is on the wall.

Mr. Wall: I am glad to see that the British Government voted against the suggestion that the rebels in Portuguese Guinea should be recognised. We always have the veto in the Security Council, if it comes to a final showdown.
I intend to vote against the order because I do not believe in sanctions in principle. They do not work; they never have worked in history, as far as I know. They certainly cannot work effectively in Rhodesia because of the support of South Africa and the Portuguese provinces. It took the British House of Commons, or the Government of the day, seven years to recognise the rebellious American colonies. Now the Government have beaten Lord North's unenviable record. This is a sad position to be in, and one which should never have arisen.
I intend to vote against the order because I believe that on three occasions Conservative leaders have had the opportunity to settle Anglo-Rhodesian differences. The first was at the Victoria Falls conference. I believe that now it is recognised that the 1961 constitution would have been infinitely better for the Africans than the 1969 constitution. Had we not put pressure upon Mr. Winston Field and Sir Roy Welensky, the world would have accepted the independence of two African States, Malawi and Zambia, at the same time as we conceded independence to Southern Rhodesia. The Rhodesians thought that they would get independence, but they did not.
The second opportunity arose when we were in opposition. We could have got off the hook of the five principles. These five principles can mean everything or nothing. One cannot define them. They mean exactly what any individual wants them to mean. Therefore, they have been a stumbling block in all negotiations between this country and Rhodesia.
I remind the House that, though the principles were originally discussed by my hon. Friends, they were codified by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and by the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, at a time when

he was talking about "frightened little men" and "weeks rather than months". They are responsible for the five principles, and we have allowed ourselves to be impaled on that hook. The principles are imprecise; that is why they are so dangerous.

Mr. James Johnson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how he visualises society in middle Africa, in this case Rhodesia, in 10 or 20 years' time? Does he visualise a multi-racial society, or does he visualise a white-dominated political assembly? Does he visualise it moving as Kenya and other countries in the vicinity have done?

Mr. Wall: I certainly do not visualise it moving as Kenya has done. I do not think the Asians are very pleased by what is happening in Kenya, nor do I think a lot of the white people left on the farms are very happy.
My view is that the whole of southern Africa will be a kaleidoscope of States joined together in a common market, or possibly a federation. Some of these States will be black-ruled, some white-ruled, and some will be multi-racial. That is the only acceptable future for the strategically important territory of southern Africa as a whole and I believe the Portuguese territories, South Africa, the ex-High Commission territories, Zambia and Rhodesia, will be included in that broad common market or federation.
I return to the theme I was discussing. The third occasion on which we could have settled our differences was at the time of the Pearce Commission. I was told on very good authority when I visited Rhodesia that the Government gave an understanding—not an undertaking—that the Pearce Commission would complete its work by December. Instead of that, it did not go out to Rhodesia until January.
All the evidence I have seen in Rhodesia, from both black and white people, leads me to believe that had the commission gone out when the settlement terms were announced in the House in November and had its work been completed by December, it would have reached very different conclusions. Why did this happen? Was the Foreign Office


dragging its feet at the time? This is a fundamental issue, and we could have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble if that commission had been sent out when the settlement terms were announced in the House. I still cannot understand why that was not done.
Both sides of the House agree that they want a settlement. We now agree that the settlement must be reached in Rhodesia. In the past, Opposition Members have insisted that we must hold the power here. From what I have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, they now agree that a settlement must be reached in Rhodesia and must be reached by all sections of African opinion.
We must remember that there are many sections. There are elected Members of Parliament who are Africans, there are businessmen, trade union leaders, and chiefs, all representing a certain section of African opinion, and there is the African National Council under Bishop Muzorewa. The ANC's importance is due to the fact that he is the only Rhodesian-African whose name is well known in Europe. He is an honest man, and he wants a settlement. He has an executive of 55, amongst whom are many ex-detainees and many present members of ZANU and ZAPU. As soon as he decides to take a step forward, pressure is put upon him to take a step backwards. Now the OAU is coming into the act, and further pressure is being exerted. As soon as one sees hopeful signs, pressure is put on and the wretched man is forced to retreat. We must realise how difficult his position is.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is not the hon. Gentleman trying to put pressure on the Foreign Secretary to take a step back?

Mr. Wall: No, I am trying to put pressure on the Foreign Secretary to take a step forward and to end this ridiculous farce, which has been described by his own Front Bench as a charade, as I believe it is.
The reason African opinion is changing in Rhodesia is not the pressure of sanctions. If sanctions are hurting anybody, they are hurting the Africans. Opinion is changing because of the work of the Rhodesian Settlement Forum and the

Rhodesian Settlement Convention. They are changing because many Africans, including the bishop, believed that if Pearce was turned down there would be a new constitutional conference at which he would sit alongside my right hon. Friend and the Rhodesian Prime Minister. He believed that that would happen. Now he has realised that it is not going to happen.
Many Africans now realise that the only alternative to the settlement terms is union with South Africa, which must inevitably come if this charade goes on for much longer. I certainly do not want to see that happen. I do not imagine that many hon. Members want to see that happen, and I am certain that very few Rhodesians, white or black, want to see it. But I suggest to the House that it is inevitable.
This is the question Rhodesian politicians always ask anyone who visits Rhodesia. They certainly ask me. They ask "What will Her Majesty's Government accept as an implementation of the five principles?" My right hon. Friend has indicated Pearce plus; but can he define more clearly what that plus would mean? It is clear to me that African and UN opinion will accept nothing short of NIBMAR. I doubt very much, if the chips were down, whether Opposition Members would accept much short of NIBMAR. Both groups, I am sure, would vote against anything else.
What are the Government asking for? What is their concept? It is not NIBMAR—they have disowned it. How far are they prepared to go, and how can the Rhodesians negotiate among themselves without having some idea of what is in Her Majesty's Government's mind?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman seeks to read my mind for the public about what I should accept. I am prepared to accept whatever the African National Council, representing the majority of African opinion, would also accept. That is why the hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that Bishop Muzorewa was misleading himself in thinking that there would be a constitutional conference. There will be a constitutional conference before this is finished, because in the end he has to be consulted along with Mr. Smith and the


British Government. However the matter evolves, in the end that is the only way this issue will be settled.

Mr. Wall: I am sorry for Bishop Muzorewa's present political position. He is not a politician. He is an honest man who truly wants the best settlement for his country. It is extremely difficult for him, or for anyone else who has an executive committee of 55, most of whom are extremists. As soon as the bishop moves forward, he is pushed back. That is the point I was trying to make.
I do not want to detain the House, but I have been interrupted on a number of occasions.
I turn to my final argument; namely, that speed of economic expansion in Rhodesia has been at least twice or three times that of this country, and I concede to the hon. and learned Gentleman that without sanctions that expansion would have been ten times as much, largely because Rhodesia would have attracted European immigration. That is what Rhodesia needs more than anything else—to generate capital and a better standard of living for the Africans.
We must face the fact that Europeans are doing well out of sanctions. It is the Africans who are suffering, and particularly school leavers who have no jobs to go to. That situation will build up a dangerous security problem in future years if it continues for much longer.
The Rhodesian forces have now got on top of terrorism. I believe that the Rhodesian Army is the best small operations army in the world. Who are these men labelled "freedom fighters"? They are men who hit at "soft" targets, by which I mean their own people who are unarmed. More Africans than Europeans have been killed in Rhodesia by terrorists in the past year. These "freedom fighters" are men who kidnap schoolchildren, who rape and torture. In August they killed a schoolmaster in front of his family and his schoolchildren. Since the Labour Party conference in Blackpool, it appears that these are the men whom the Opposition now officially support. Do the Opposition deny that? Do they support violence and terrorism in Rhodesia today, because it is apparent from their stated policy that they do?
It is because I wish to pay tribute to the courage of Rhodesians, both black and white, that I shall vote against the order, and I hope that those of my hon. Friends who told me last year that that was the last time they would support sanctions will follow me into the Lobby.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I find the attitude of my side of the House the more respectable of the two today. It is not that I agree with the attitude of my side of the House but that I find it sincere, even though deluded. I find it difficult to respect the attitude of the Government, for I can find no sincerity in it at all.
The Foreign Secretary said that we must not give up the hope of bringing Rhodesia into the community of nations. Did he mean the United Nations? If he meant that, it would give the impression that he had never been there—that he was unaware of the passionate racialism of the United Nations majority, which involves not only black but brown. It is a passionate racialism which involves even the unfortunate Israelis, who have done a great service to Africa, because their complexion is too light.
Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that any conceivable settlement on Rhodesia which did not involve the total subjection of the white to the black would be acceptable to the United Nations or to the majority there? Of course it would not. If Bishop Muzorewa, who is a sincere man, were asked, he would say what was good for his country. He wants to get rid of sanctions; he wants to see Rhodesia working again because he knows that it is for the good of black Rhodesians. But if he comes to an agreement on that basis, it will be at the expense of his being denounced by all black Africa—and, indeed, by the brown world and the yellow world—as a Quisling Uncle Tom. That is what would happen.
I find it hard to believe in the Government's sincerity when they talk of the hope of bringing Rhodesia into the community of nations on any conceivable terms. That just does not arise.
I turn to the sanctions and what they are supposed to do. The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richards) said that they were preventing the financial development of Rhodesia. Of course


they are. They are preventing industries there going ahead; they are preventing any increase in employment there; they are preventing black school leavers getting a job; they are preventing black workers in the Rhodesian economy obtaining promotion.
I am not a racialist. I never wanted to see Rhodesia as a white-dominated country. I wanted to see it as the first multi-racial country in Africa. I thought that that chance depended not on the form of constitution but on the evolution of the country and its economic circumstances. We are dealing with a country that is unlike South Africa, where the figures of black to white are three to one. The figure in Rhodesia is 22 to one. Therefore, apartheid on this terms is nonsense. Apartheid on those terms can exist only in a static society. It is precisely that static society which is the result, and the only result, of sanctions.
If the whole process could be stopped, it would be possible for white domination to continue. If one had allowed the economy to go ahead, one would not have had white domination since the figures were dead against it. One would have had to build that expanded economy on the advance of the blacks into all kinds of positions—first in subaltern authority and then in greater positions of authority. There are not enough whites in the country to envisage anything else. Educational advance would have gone forward because employment demands would have required educated men, and there were only Africans to provide them. The sad but effective part of these sanctions is that they have stopped the very process which would have imposed the first multi-racial society to come out of Rhodesia's advancing economy. The Government know that perfectly well, and they know whom they hurt, but they are going on with their sanctions.
Then the right hon. Gentleman told us that if these sanctions were removed it would cause the moderates to lose hope. What moderates has he in mind? Is it Mr. Bashford, is it Sir Roy Welensky? Which single moderate in Rhodesia has not begged him to remove the sanctions, because they are the one thing which keeps Mr. Smith and his more reactionary friends firmly in power? Does Bishop Muzorewa support sanc-

tions? He would be utterly thankful to see them go. His chance would be enormously better if this nonsense were out of the way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend for interrupting, but has he ever spoken to these people? Has he ever spoken to Bishop Muzorewa about his attitude to sanctions, because that does not appear to be his view?

Mr. Paget: I can produce the quotation for my hon. Friend. What he has said in Rhodesia is certainly on record.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: He has spoken rather differently in private.

Mr. Paget: He may have spoken differently in private from what he has said in public, but that is no good at all. Certainly, I should be very interested to hear any public statement, by anybody who, by any stretch of the imagination, could be called a moderate in Rhodesia, that has favoured the maintenance of sanctions. I should be very interested if anybody could produce such a public statement.
Therefore, what are we doing here? In a word, this is a policy of appeasement. It is precisely this same policy that we discussed last week in regard to supplying spare parts for the Centurions with which we have provided Israel. We thought that, by that very dishonourable let-down of our plainest obligations, we could appease the Arabs. Maybe we have saved our weekend motoring, but not at a price that I care to pay for it.
Now this same idea is applied in Africa, and it is imagined that we can somehow appease black Africa by feeding our friends to them. It will go on. This policy of decadent appeasement, which is the real basis of what is happening tonight, happened in Biafra. But that is not true of this side of the House, because many on this side believe that it is nonsense. But, the Government think that this is a way by which they can appease.
I have a strong feeling that I am living in eighteenth century Venice, and am suddenly feeling the numbness which has come to a society with a lack of the will to assert its interests, to assert its point of view, to stand up for itself. There is


this idea that something can be obtained by apologising for oneself, but when one does that the boot will always be put in. In the days when we had a better standing, South Africa was our friend and we traded with her. None of these African nations says "We will not trade with you if you trade with the apartheid people", because that trade is established. But if it started now, we should have the same trouble. Rhodesia is just something which they think they can kick us over.
We shall get out of this impasse only when we are prepared to stand up once again and say "No", to say that we are going to do what we think is right, that we are going to write our own foreign policy and not have it written for us either in Brussels or in NATO. Until we can show a little courage again we shall move from one miserable situation of surrender to another. Here again we are being asked to consent to a policy, which everybody on the Government side of the House knows is wrong, in order to appease.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I listened with attention and a great deal of satisfaction to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). His is a blessedly independent voice. There are perhaps too few such voices in the country, perhaps even in this place, and I hope his words will be heeded not only by his right hon. and hon. Friends but by those on this side of the House as well. I hope, too, that they will be read in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and that the Government will pay attention to them.
They were rough words. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a decadent appeasement, and I do not suppose many of us on this side of the House would wish to use that sort of expression in any debate about the Government or about policies pursued by a Government whom we support. Nevertheless, the mood which he describes is something which I dare say every one of us in this House is conscious of. I dare say the hon. and learned Gentleman is right and that we shall not get our foreign policy right or be in a position to take wise decisions until we can "ship" a little

more courage, as he put it, than we do at the moment. I think this debate is simply about one aspect of a wider problem which he sought to describe.
I was grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, much more grateful than I was for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). He may be a very good lawyer, he is certainly no mean hand as a speaker in the House of Commons, but he is a rotten economist and would make an even worse businessman. He said that one reason why he did not wish to trade with Rhodesia was that the Rhodesians had abrogated their constitution. If he is not going to trade with any country in Africa which has abrogated its constitution, how much business will he do?
The hon. and learned Gentleman produced figures which, although I am not a great hand as an economist or even as an arithmetician, seemed to me to support the exact contrary argument to the one which he was seeking to adduce. He read widely from some article—I apologise for forgetting which magazine it was; he could have written it himself, I should have thought—which was nothing more than an expression of opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions in this place. The author of this article manifestly shares the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court, but it does not make him right.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman talked to people who do business in Africa he would find that the gentleman who wrote the article was writing nonsense. Certainly most people who have experience of the area would agree with me. One thing alone which he said I agree with, and that is that this debate has become a charade. That is why I shall confine my remarks. Most of the things that I wished to say have been better said already by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This debate is a charade because we know the outcome. We know what is going to be said and by whom it will be said. The only purpose is to examine old arguments to see if they are still valid, and to see whether there may some new element in the situation.
I should like to say a word on those two themes. First: are the original arguments—those I have adduced over the years—valid still? The case that is so blandly presented to us each year by whatever Government is responsible is always put in terms of actuality. Seldom does my right hon. Friend take account of the beginning, or, very often, of the end. For the record, I would like to go back to the beginning.
Rhodesia has ruled her own destiny since 1923. During that time, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s, there have been many wise and liberal leaders, whose aims were near to the highest ideals of Cecil Rhodes. After the war, Rhodesia was invited to join the Central African Federation on the clear understanding that she would be given independence as part of the settlement. Let us never forget that. What happened? Against the advice of many responsible citizens, Rhodesia joined the federation. As they had foreseen, the federation fell to pieces. Zambia and Malawi got independence, Rhodesia did not.
The conditions subsequently demanded by Labour and Conservative Governments were always just too much. Wise and responsible men in charge of Rhodesia's affairs would go so far, but they were always asked to go a little further, until at last the people of Rhodesia turned in despair to the Rhodesia Front. That is the background. Everything that has happened since has its genesis in that long, bungling relationship for which Her Majesty's Governments of both persuasions must take responsibility and blame.
That is the main reason why I shall vote against the order. It is the only way I have of expressing the revulsion I feel at this long and miserable story, regardless of the arguments today about what sanctions might or might not do.
For eight years we in the Conservative Party have been assured by our leaders that our instincts are generally right and that sanctions, though perhaps necessary, constitute a bad policy.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the original resolution would wrest the initiative for settling the dispute from Britain and hand it to the Security Council. My right hon. Friend

the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that it was an abuse of the charter and constituted a dangerous precedent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that sanctions would never bring Rhodesia down and must not be applied vindictively. Finally, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that sanctions were the bankruptcy of statesmanship. So tonight we are invited to renew them again.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will accept this in the spirit in which I mean it. I know of no one who could advocate this counsel of unwisdom with such consummate skill as he. On listening to him this evening I almost imagined the Rhodesians shaking at the knees at the possibility of the withdrawal of sanctions.
Second: is there any new element? There is just one which was ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). Her Majesty's Government's policy is now supposed to encourage discussion. We have heard a great deal about what is going on behind the scenes, but where is the evidence that anything is being achieved? With Her Majesty's Government removed from the scene, the influence over these discussions—if they be meaningful and are taking place—of the OAU countries, Nigeria, Zambia and Tanzania in particular, is being brought increasingly to bear, so that the Rhodesian Front Government are not negotiating with Bishop Muzorewa alone, or indeed, with his more moderate advisers—and there are not many of them—but are instead negotiating with these other countries.
That is the danger that this policy has created. So long as we were holding the ring this outside interference would not have taken place to the same extent. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he saw it as the task of the Government to hold the ring. I see no evidence of their succeeding; rather the precise contrary—I see increasing interference from the outside as a result of our having opted out.

Mr. Richard: How do we hold the ring better by withdrawing from the situation?

Mr. Hastings: I do not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. It sounds like some legal entanglement.

Mr. Richard: I put it simply, in that case. It has nothing to do with legal entanglement at all. It is a straight and simple question. The hon. Gentleman has said three or four times that it would be better if we were holding the ring. How can we be in a better position to hold the ring in Rhodesia if we withdraw from it almost entirely and wash our hands of what happens?

Mr. Hastings: That is a nonsensical interpretation of what I did not say. The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about sanctions. I certainly want to get rid of them, but I do not want to get out of the situation at all. I want to achieve a sensible solution.

Mr. Richard: How?

Mr. Hastings: By advocating talks and taking part ourselves. I do not see that, by getting out, we are doing any more, on present evidence, than encouraging interference from African countries outside—and that manifestly has happened increasingly since last year's debate.
I can see no real hope of progress in these circumstances. If the ANC is in the hands of the African powers outside, or is influenced unduly by them, I am afraid that it is being excessively hopeful to pretend that there will be a settlement. Therefore, it is only sensible, surely, after these eight years to stop now. There could be a phased programme, say, against agreed reforms in Rhodesia, and in the general context of the talks and of what my right hon. Friend has called "Pearce-plus" there might well be room for improvement, with sanctions disappearing on a phased programme against some gain on the other side.
The time has come to advocate that Rhodesia has every right to expect to be recognised. There is a very interesting and well-argued Bow Group pamplet which has just come out on this subject and which goes some way, perhaps, towards refuting the accusation of those who have always held that we who are opposed to the policy of sanctions are simply a band of incorrigible reactionairies on the right of the Conservative Party. It is a very thoughtful document, and the Government would do well to study it.
There is a traditional British policy, expressed by none better than Lord Trevelyan in his recent book "Diplomatic Channels", in which he says:
The sensible British practice is to establish diplomatic relations with any government which has control of a country and looks like keeping it, whether we like the government or not. To be in relations with a government should not mean that you approve of it, but only that you have interests in the country which you want to protect and therefore have to deal with the people who are governing it.
That is common sense and was appreciated throughout the nineteenth century,—indeed, until only a few years ago.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If Lord Trevelyan were here, he would have to say that this was in respect of independent foreign countries and not of one which had a dependent relationship with the United Kingdom. That is the difference.

Mr. Hastings: I appreciate that, but if my right hon. Friend will pay the Bow Group the compliment of reading its pamphlet he will find that there is a well argued parallel with Chile, despite what he has said. It would perhaps be worth his while to look at that.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does not the Bow Group also argue that even if Rhodesia be considered as a colony in rebellion, which is a somewhat misleading description in the case of Rhodesia, Rhodesia still satisfies the criteria for international recognition?

Mr. Hastings: That is my understanding of the proposition, although I am not an international lawyer, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
My verdict is that despite their assurances and attempts, the Government have failed to solve the problem of Rhodesia. I conceive it to be a disgrace that we should be asked yet again to approve this order. I wish the Government could screw up their courage and rid us of this unnecessary abscess. This is the only realistic contribution that they can now make towards security in Central Africa. Of course there would be an international row. It would last three or four weeks, perhaps even two months, and they would have to sit it out. But are they incapable of that? I refuse to believe it.
If they will not pursue this course—my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice also hinted at this—let them explain their convictions now that we—indeed, all of West Europe—are being subjected to economic sanctions to achieve a political aim. We seem to be a good deal more compliant in Western Europe than the Rhodesians, incidentally.
When the history of our times is written from the perspective of, say, 50 years, I believe that it will be said that this incident was the point at which we lost touch with the realities of power: indeed, the point at which we went off our collective head. I have no intention of going off mine, and I shall vote against the order tonight as usual.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) referred to what might have been done in the nineteenth century about one feature of this problem. If the Government of a British colony in the nineteenth century had illegally seized power, I wonder what he thinks would have happened. What we would have done—and what we should have done in 1965—would be immediately to use as much force as was necessary in order to compel the obedience of that Government to the law. That would have been the spirit of the nineteenth century and it is what we should have done in 1965.
Whenever I have intervened on this subject I have always been ready to admit that the primary responsibility for our failure in Rhodesia—although the responsibility belongs to both parties—is that of the party that was in power in 1965 and was immediately charged with responsibility. That was my own party.
On these occasions it is easy to make trouble between the vultures on the Government benches below the Gangway—the description does not apply to all of them—and their own Government, but when this House is responsible for 5 million people and has positively asserted its responsibility by passing an Act of Parliament eight years ago come Monday, and has repeated its responsibility each year, the situation is too serious and our honour too closely concerned to try to make trouble between different factions of the Conservative Party.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) used the word "decadence". Right from the time of UDI and before I have felt that the word "decadence" is the one that immediately springs to mind in talking about Rhodesia. That feeling dates at least from the debate in the House on 12th November 1965—before I came here—when most speakers seemed more concerned with scoring party points than with acting up to their responsibilities on behalf of a British colony. But although hon. Members on both sides of the argument might use the word "decadence", I suggest that decadence can show itself in very different forms.
My hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire feel that it is decadent to give in to the pressure of black African States to do something in Rhodesia. I regard it as decadent that successive British Governments, faced with the accepted illegality of the revolt of the Government of a British colony, seizing 5 million British subjects into their control, have not immediately settled the hash of that Government.
I want to see the kind of "gutsy" reaction that the previous two speakers called for, but it should be a gutsy reaction in the direction of modern life and not in the direction of maintaining racial supremacies in the middle of Africa which are doomed in the end, whether the vultures opposite below the Gangway accept it or not.

Mr. Soref: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "settling the hash"?

Mr. Cunningham: I will explain. It could have been done in a number of ways. When the Government of a British colony decide that they will tear up the constitution which this House made and imposed upon them, it is the duty of the British Government, possessing the legal authority in that territory, to use such force as is required to bring those who have disobeyed the law before the courts to suffer the proper penalties. That is the responsibility of the Government. That is what the process of government is all about. If someone breaks the law in my constituency or in the Gorbals he goes to gaol. The attitude of the British Government should have been that


those who broke the law in Salisbury should go to gaol.
That is what I mean by "settling the hash"—ensuring that those who abide by the law are protected and that those who break it, like Smith and his gang, are brought before the courts to suffer the full penalty of the law.
I wonder whether it is correct to refer to this annual charade as a farce, or whether it is not more in the nature of a tragedy. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has now left the Chamber, feels that the lapse into violent reaction by those who have no legal means of getting their way in Rhodesia is something which must condemn their side. We all know that if people are denied advance by democratic means they will turn to violence. It is not something of which we have to approve or disapprove. If we have been alive we know it happens. That is life. It will not be nice violence. It will get nastier—and not because I want it to. I do not want to encourage Mau Mau type activities in Rhodesia, but we have to face the fact that if people are denied any democratic means of achieving a political and social advance, this is what will happen.
"Tragedy" is the right word because in the end these people will do things which we shall all condemn. Atrocities will be committed. But what other development do we expect if we deny these people the normal processes of political evolution? The shameful rôle of this country in connection with Rhodesia has gone on for eight years. The principal ingredient of all the errors that we have committed from, say, a year before UDI until now—and which will persist—has been self-deception.
The British have a capacity for self-deception which is boundless. We assumed, or some did—I must say I did not—that economic sanctions against Rhodesia might work. It was plain to some of us—and we said so at the time of UDI—that it was extremely unlikely that economic sanctions would work, especially if they were not backed up by the possibility of using force. It was the ruling out of force that made all lesser measures ineffective. A man can be led by the arm if it is made clear to him that he will be frog-marched if he resists.

If we say to him at the beginning that we do not intend to use force against him, all the lesser measures, warnings and sanctions, will have no effect.
There is always an argument on these occasions as to whether sanctions are biting, or working, or whatever the term is. Sanctions can bite without working. They bite if they impose some hardship. But they work only if they produce the objective which we have set ourselves—which the Government set immediately after UDI—namely, the securing of a change of government in Rhodesia. They did not work, and were never likely to work. So we are faced with sanctions which are having a harmful effect in Rhodesia—sanctions which are biting but are not working. They never will work to secure a change of government there.
Nevertheless, if it were only a matter of British self-respect in the face of the Government of a British colony who have illegally and immorally seized power, I would not wish to condone that activity in any manner by restoring normal relations with the present Government of Rhodesia. We have to face the fact that in the future the Africans of Rhodesia will, regrettably, have to work out their own salvation without the help from us to which they were entitled. Neither this Government nor any other British Government in prospect will do that job for them. They must do it for themselves.
I wish to mention again what I believe is the very marginal service that the House can, even at this stage, perform for the 5 million people whom we have so badly let down. I have yet to encounter anyone who agrees with me upon this. At this stage it is our duty—as we are not ourselves willing to do the necessary—to endeavour to hand over to the United Nations some power, additional to its rights at the moment—which are limited in respect of Rhodesia—to intervene. We are not going to do the job. In the end the Africans in Rhodesia, with such United Nations help as they might get, will have to do it. Assistance for the United Nations is more likely to be quicker and based upon law if Rhodesia becomes a United Nations trust territory.

Mr. Hastings: Does the hon. Member remember the example of the United


Nations in the Congo? Does he think that that is a useful precedent?

Mr. Cunningham: No, I do not think it is. But the United Nations has never managed to perform a peace-keeping rôle in a manner which I would regard as competent. However, one either looks to the United Nations to assist the Africans in Rhodesia or one fails to give them any assistance at all.
Sooner or later the United Nations will give some assistance to Africans in Rhodesia. At the moment it has no legal right to do so. Since, over eight years, we in this House have been decadent enough not to do our duty, before we bow out finally from this aspect of British colonial history, this shameful episode, we ought, as we are not prepared to use our legal powers, to hand over to the United Nations that small legal right which derives from a territory's being a United Nations trust territory, so that what intervention it is able and inclined to make is at least based upon law.
It will not be a great advantage. The advantage which the United Nations possesses in respect of Namibia is not very great compared to its rôle in respect of the Republic of South Africa, but it is a significant difference. The United Nations has been able to do more in Namibia—to have more of a presence and an effect—because this is a mandated territory. If we were prepared to make Rhodesia a United Nations trust territory, instead of doing absolutely nothing for the 5 million people whom we have let down, we should at least have handed over some small part of our legal powers in relation to Rhodesia to the only body which, in the end, is likely to be able to help the 5 million Africans.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Harold Soref: I am delighted that I took the precaution, before listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), who apparently wants to make sure there is a war in Central Africa, of visiting Rhodesia on two occasions since the recital of this charade last year. From listening to speeches made from the other side of the House and viewing the situation as it is in Rhodesia, one is constrained to believe that there are certain hon.

Members who live in cloud-cuckoo land. The realities of Rhodesia are vastly different from what we are told here.
On my visits I had the opportunity of visiting he whom I prefer to call the Prime Minister rather than the "gangster" referred to by an hon. Member opposite. I also visited members of the opposition—and the black opposition. In how many Parliaments in Africa to the north of Rhodesia can one visit members of the opposition? They are not allowed to exist? But in Rhodesia, not only do they freely exist and one can visit and speak freely with them, but with one exception they were all black and they all had plenty of views, which may be sensible or otherwise, but they can speak freely, and they do so.
Similarly, there is no country on the African Continent to the north of Rhodesia which has a free Press as Rhodesia has, a Press which is a monopolistic Press, hostile to the Rhodesian Government. That is inconceivable anywhere else and is something which we should record.
Why is it, in the context of what is happening in the world today, that Rhodesia is singled out for such singular persecution? What crimes has it committed? It was alleged, on the one hand, by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister, that Rhodesia was a threat to peace. It has never been a threat to peace. It is not now and it was not then. It is probably the most peaceful country in the African Continent. It is the only country where, for example, the Prime Minister has no protection whatsoever. Anybody can enter his office. There is one unarmed policeman outside the Prime Minister's office building. The degree of freedom which exists there is unsurpassed on the African Continent.
What are we trying to do but destroy that and replace it with what? There is no country to the north that Rhodesia can learn lessons from. Is it not significant that Rhodesia is a country into which Africans seeks to immigrate, and from which Africans refuse to emigrate, because conditions are so much better than in their northern neighbours' territories?
In fact, the only serious migration which takes place is to the Republic of South Africa, where, for obvious reasons, social conditions are better because more


money can be spent on hospitals and schools. But Africans from outside seek to come to Rhodesia because conditions are so much better.
When I go there, as I do most years, and speak to the hundreds of Africans whom I know, they tell me that conditions are improving. It is a fact based on statistics, equally good as those produced by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), that, under the present Rhodesian Front Government, and despite economic sanctions by this country and many other countries—far too many countries in my opinion—the standard of living of the Africans and the amount of money spent on education and hospitals have increased and are increasing. Despite all the impediments that they have encountered, desipte the economic warfare, the standard of living of Rhodesians has improved, and I am pleased to say that, whatever disparity there has been, the standard of Africans has risen also at a greater rate.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman, in addition to his tributes to what is going on in Rhodesia, tell us whether Africans are free to reside in any part of Salisbury, the capital city of their own country?

Mr. Soref: There are, for reasons of protection of all segments of society, rules that prevent a European businessman opening a shop in an African reserve, or in a black territory. Racial relations are best served by the present means adopted in Rhodesia. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in racial relations in Africa he should know that there is no former African colony where Asians feel as secure as in Rhodesia. Not one persecuted Asian refugee has left Rhodesia to come to this country. Not one wishes to do so. I met both Hindus and Moslems during my visit at Christmas and New Year who told me how their conditions were so much better than those of their brothers and cousins, whether in Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania or anywhere to the north. The same is true of all other components of the population.
It is not merely a coincidence that this country itself is being threatened by the imposition of sanctions by the Arab States. What makes that so interesting is that at present Egypt, which is an aggressor, has received a bounty from this

country of £10 million; yet not only has Tanzania, which was recently feted in London, had its business interests threatened but, as was revealed in the Press, British settlers in Tanzania are forced to leave the country because of reprisals owing to what has happened in Libya and the unsubstantiated suggestion that they were helping the Israelis.
This partially answers the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. Of course there is substantial investment and trade in black Africa. But there is not an export merchant in the City of London, not an investor in those territories, who will not speak of the jeopardy in which he is placed. Ask those interests which have had their losses in Tanzania or Uganda without any compensation whatsoever. All British investment in black Africa is in jeopardy. Much of it has been lost. Bankruptcies have occurred in the City of London time and again because of the confiscations that have taken place.
Such risk is increased at the moment because so much of the commerce in these territories was in the hands of the Indian population. The Indians were good at commerce, and now that they have been removed commerce is in the hands of people who are incapable of exercising commercial understanding. The result is that, in addition to confiscation and nationalisation, millions of pounds of British money have been lost.

Mr. Richard: I wonder whether that is so. If the City of London is so scared, why is it that investment is increasing so rapidly in those very countries?

Miss Joan Hall: The hon. and learned Member talks about the City of London rather a lot, but I remind him that there are many investing companies outside the City of London which are investing in Africa and elsewhere.

Mr. Soref: The amount of money that has been lost in Africa has been lost very largely by investors, investing companies, confirming houses and merchants in the City of London, and I have no doubt elsewhere as well. The great difference between Rhodesia and the countries to the north is that Rhodesia asks nothing of us. She never received a bounty from the British Exchequer. She does not


seek aid. She merely requests the opportunity to trade and perform legitimate business. The other territories which have been mentioned earlier and where money has been lost seek and obtain aid from the British taxpayer and at the same time do everything to undermine British lives and interests. We should also not overlook the fact that after 50 years of peaceful development which Rhodesia has enjoyed, that country has gone ahead in a way that no other country has in central Africa. During those 50 years the Rhodesians have had complete local internal autonomy.
It was the suggestion of Mr. Winston Churchill, when he was Colonial Secretary, that Rhodesia should go in with the Union of South Africa in 1921. I have his speech in which he commended this possibility, and he did so in a manner very different from the attitude adopted towards Rhodesia today. He merely suggested that it would be in Rhodesia's interest that it should have the last word. Rhodesia had a referendum on the subject. The decision was that it would rather remain within the British Empire and have local autonomy. During that period it has maintained all services and its army, through taxes imposed locally, and it has done so in a way that is by most standards commendable, in that the United Nations figures prove that more money is spent on social welfare on Africans in Rhodesia per capita than in countries to the north.
What strikes me as so appalling is that Opposition Members who, in another context and in other debates are so concerned about unemployment, poverty and distress anywhere else in the world, are trying to manufacture it by making sanctions bite. What does that mean but to reduce Rhodesia to poverty? What good can that possibly do to anybody? It does no good to the black; it does no good to the white; it does no good to this country. It merely creates not only unemployment but a chaotic condition which must produce a revolution. Surely no reasonable person can want that.
It is significant to have a confession that hon. Members opposite seek a bloody revolution—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Not bloody.

Mr. Soref: Revolutions are always bloody. The risk involved is so great that this is one of the greatest confessions of a dedicated partisan of sanctions. But is it not remarkable that, whereas, for example, in Ethiopia drought has produced the most appalling conditions and suffering, Rhodesia had its worst drought last year for a very long period and yet, because of the self-help and enterprise of the population, and despite sanctions, Rhodesia is even now exporting agricultural produce because of her ability?
The tobacco industry has been almost ruined by sanctions, and the Rhodesian tobacco farmer has largely gone over to growing cotton. But what is the effect? Far fewer Africans are employed in growing cotton than in growing tobacco. I should have thought that a net disadvantage. But such is the patriotism of the Rhodesian population that the tobacco farmers, who have suffered more than any other part of the population as a class are the strongest supporters of Mr. Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front.
I find it particularly distressing, in the light of what is happening in Rhodesia that Her Majesty's Government should have given a United Kingdom passport to Mr. Chetepo, who is the head of the terrorist organisation ZANU financed by the Red Chinese, when Mr. Gerald Hawksworth, a Briton, is a prisoner of ZANU—nobody quite knows where, but it is believed somewhere in Tanzania.
These things have a strong emotional effect on Rhodesians, almost as much as sanctions. They feel that we support brigands and terrorists, such as ZANU, who wish to bring destitution to that country. They resent the fact that a Briton could have been treated as Hawks-worth was, that Britain has done nothing about it and that no one knows where he is and that there is no outcry in this country. Yet if he had been black, there would have been the most appalling outcry—he would probably have joined Mrs. Allende in Trafalgar Square when he came out of captivity.
That is the trouble with double standards.

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Soref: I have given way on one occasion already, and other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soref: I am not giving way.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the hon. Gentleman afraid of the point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) knows perfectly well that he should, therefore, not persist in his question.

Mr. Soref: I am not giving way again. I want to conclude my speech to give other hon. Members who wish to speak an opportunity to do so. I have also given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity—

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been given a good chance to put his point of view. He must not interrupt others.

Mr. Soref: In this country we should recognise what the Rhodesians have done, not only for their own people but in two world wars for us. I do not believe that that is something that we can ignore. The greatest danger we face in this country is failure to recognise who are our friends and who are our enemies.
Rhodesia has always been a friend of this country. Fundamentally, there is no conflict of interest. The sooner we make peace, the better.
I shall go into the Lobby tonight against the Government because I believe that these sanctions are vindictive. They achieve absolutely nothing politically, and if, as may well be proved, they have an unfortunate economic effect on Rhodesia, surely to create economic suffering is nothing of which one could be proud. It is something of which we should be ashamed on behalf of our own people.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Those of us who over a period of years have taken part in debates on Africa have a feeling of déjà vu. This has all happened before.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) is a well-known performer on this circuit and others. One of the biggest defects of this Chamber is that, unlike the Chamber of Deputies in Paris, we have no black deputies or members of overseas territories to take part in our debates. If we had members similar to those who sit on behalf of Martinique and Guadeloupe—if, for example, we had members sitting here representing Zanzibar or Malta, or where ever it may be—we might have heard a very different viewpoint from that put forward by the hon. Member for Ormskirk.
The hon. Gentleman knows Central Africa well. He knows about the people, the situation and the economics of that Continent. I am sure he even knows how many tons of soya beans various countries export, and all the rest of it. But if we had here tonight, as there have been in Paris for many years, black men who live among their own people and who speak for their people, they would be shocked to hear the sentiments which the hon. Member has been uttering.
We have heard some hard language tonight. We have heard my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who is always salty and worth listening to. He has his views; he is an independent, and one can agree with much of what he says. The word "charade" has been used, but is this not also a matter of sheer hypocrisy? There is an unreal atmosphere in these debates. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary—he was not thinking aloud—who said that we must help the natural settlement, and must do so with the least possible disturbance.
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Smith—or should it be "Mr. Smith"—wishes to have a settlement on the lines that we in this House visualised when we had settlements with our own people in former dependencies such as Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania? I do not believe for one moment that he does, and I challenge anyone on the Government benches to state that Mr. Smith and people like him, who hold power between the Zambesi and the Limpopo, desire to have a settlement with blacks, Asians or whites in Central Africa on the lines that we in this Chamber, of whatever party, have visualised over the years.
I think of the names of those who have departed, such as kin Macleod, and who have gone to the Lords, such as Lord Boyd. There is no one on these benches who can say that Mr. Smith visualises that, in two, five, 10, 15 or 20 years, the Africans will advance to ultimate and final emancipation and political independence in the sense that we visualised in the 1950s and 1960s.

Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this House has given multiracial constitutions to many ex-colonies of Africa, and will he say how many still have those multi-racial constitutions? How many have dictators or army takeovers, or one-party States?

Mr. Johnson: I am not a statistical machine, but I know the facts as well as the hon. Member does. I tell him that if he wants to debate with me on those terms he is flying in the face of history, which is being made day by day. That is the way history is going, and the clock cannot be put back in continents like Africa or Asia. That is why I say that all parties in this House have looked upon those areas as territories where one finally moves into a situation where the mass of the people, whatever their colour, becomes dominant or leading, and becomes the government in power.
If, in a situation where there are only 250,000 whites, where blacks are having more and more youngsters in comparison with the whites, and where the population gap will become more and more wide with economic facilities and development, Mr. Smith does not hand over political power, that will not reflect the sort of democratic language which has been spoken by many of us in this Chamber for the past two decades. Hon. Members talk about the moderates giving up, but where are these moderates in this situation? There were Rhodesian moderates in the past who were much better than the present moderates. Who was a better moderate than Sir Roy Welensky. He was given a chance; maybe he was not given all the chances, but he was given a chance and set upon his way in the multiracial federation. But the African population would not wear this. This is history as it has been made in the lives of us all. Therefore, we are turning back Commonwealth history if we use lan-

guage which has been used in this instance. Where, in Africa, have the moderates held power, continued to hold power, and built up a society? When we talk about the African National Council and about Bishop Muzorewa, do not let us call him—as he was called tonight, unfortunately by a colleague on these benches—"a Quisling Uncle Tom".

Mr. Paget: I said nothing of the sort. I said that if he came to an agreement—in fact, he would not be allowed to do so—that is what black Africa would call him.

Mr. Johnson: We are both saying the same thing. [Interruption.] We are, because in the opinion of this House "a Quisling Uncle Tom" would be his designation in his society. Therefore, this term would fit him. Otherwise, why use it? In my view, people like Bishop Muzorewa act as historical midwives in colonial territories when they move into a certain position; then as the political society develops, people who are not so moderate—we would now call them extremists—move in afterwards.
If anyone thinks that in a continent like Africa one can avoid changes of this nature without some violence, then, to use an expression which was used earlier, he is indeed living in cloud-cuckoo land. The charge can be levied against us on these benches that we sometimes live in cloud-cockoo land; but I am speaking in the light of African social and political development. Canute thought that he could hold the tide back. There are too many Canutes on the Government benches. I have sat here, almost thinking aloud, in this artificial atmosphere where the same things are said year after year. We may say them, as white people, in this Chamber, but the black society overseas is changing. It is a dynamic society out there. Here we are static. We say the same things year after year about those people.

Mr. Paget: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument with interest. Surely what he is saying is that time is moving on. Why do we not get out of its way? That is all there is to do.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. and learned Friend and I have been sitting on these benches seeing Europeans, or white, or


Anglo-Saxons, getting out of the way in Kenya. I am speaking in a political context. I am not speaking in the sense of miners, doctors, lawyers, economists and teachers. I am speaking in the sense of political development, political emancipation and political change. I am speaking of people who make the laws, people who decide the zones where people live, in Salisbury and elsewhere. Who are the people who make decisions in their own African society? We have seen the changes in Lusaka, Nairobi, Lagos and elsewhere. If anyone thinks that less than 250,000 white people can hold back this constant change and surge in political life they are living in cloud-cockoo land.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If that is so, what is the point of sanctions?

Mr. Johnson: During the ninteenth and twentieth centuries we went to Africa and handed over the good things of life—material comforts, spiritual nourishment and political power and decision-making. That has been our mission from these islands and north-west Europe. Here, we are holding back on this course.
We have no black men sitting here to tell us what their people think, although there is a lot of third-party talk about what the OAU thinks. The Foreign Secretary and I were fortunate to be at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference recently. There I met no one, whether from Hong Kong, Canada, the Bahamas or Singapore, who did not condemn our political stance in middle Africa, where live these 5 million black people who are finding their feet and surging to get to the top. Not a single delegate at the CPA Conference thought differently from the way in which we on the Opposition benches think.

Miss Joan Hall: I was with the hon. Gentleman at that conference. The thing that the people of all shades of colour and opinion deprecate more than anything else is hypocrisy, wherever it comes from.

Mr. Johnson: I began by talking about an atmosphere of hypocrisy. The speeches we have heard from the Conservative benches all have an air of unreality. We speak of the Africans being superstitious and employing witch doctors, but the superstition is all on the Conservative benches. It is all superstition and

folk lore. Conservative Members behave like our ancestors did in the nineteenth century. Whether one talks to American-educated lawyers of the Bahamas, English stock in Quebec, or black men who have been to the LSE or Nsukka University in Nigeria, one finds without exception that they consider that Bishop Muzorewa and others with him should be allowed to come out into the open, and that Mr. Smith should alter his views about the way in which Rhodesian society should develop in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. I see no sign of this in this Chamber. I hear the same old clichés, superstition and soothsaying from the Conservative benches. I hope hon. Gentlemen will come into the daylight and find out what the black African leaders think about the present situation.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has made a careful study of certain parts of Africa and takes a great interest in that part of the world. I have tried to follow the theme of this argument, but I am not quite certain what constructive suggestions he is putting forward as a way out of this difficult problem.
I am in isolation on the Government back benches in that I support the Government's proposal to renew sanctions, but I do so extremely reluctantly. In two ways sanctions have made no contribution to solving the problem. We have heard from both sides of the House the economic arguments. We have heard that sanctions have not led to a change in the régime and its attitudes. But, far more important, sanctions lead to isolation—a lack of contact between Rhodesia and the rest of the world. This is harmful, and leads to more extremism. But I do not think that we can just drop sanctions, except on an honourable basis. We have four options before us.
The first is to say that after eight years, sanctions have been a failure and that, as one or two hon. Members have suggested, we should hand the matter to the United Nations. I believe that that would be utterly disastrous. It could make Rhodesia the playground of the prejudices of the member countries of the United Nations, and the consequences would be disastrous for the Rhodesians—both African and European.
The second option is to drop sanctions just like that. There would be international implications. There might be some implications for our trade. But I would oppose such a move on two grounds. First, it might well lead to a United Nations take-over of the Rhodesian situation, which is the one thing we want to avoid. Secondly—this was a most important argument put by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—it might spoil the chances of the discussions now taking place between Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa and other Africans and encourage extremism in Rhodesia.
The third option is to maintain the status quo, which, for the reasons I have given, I regard as being unsatisfactory. Indeed, a policy of sanctions is an essentially clumsy means of diplomacy. It creates isolationism. Sanctions on their own do not produce the results that we want. But if we are to maintain that policy, we are entitled to ask other countries rigidly to stick to sanctions, which many of them are breaking. But it is an entirely negative policy for the long-term future of the Rhodesians.
Finally, therefore, we in this House have an overwhelming duty to seek out new ways of breaking through the barrier of sanctions. I would like my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of the United Kingdom's taking the lead with the Commonwealth in trying one more initiative which might provide a spur or incentive to the Africans and the Europeans to reach a final agreement on the basis that they are at the moment having discussions.
The criteria for satisfactory progress of the Africans towards majority rule and an enhanced political status, which is part of the proposals for the settlement which we reached with Mr. Smith, are a steady improvement in the educational standards of the Africans and, allied to that, a steady improvement in their income and property standards. In these proposals, the United Kingdom offered £5 million per annum for 10 years in capital aid and technical assistance, to be matched on an equal basis by the Rhodesian Government.
The communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in

Ottawa contained two hopeful signs. First, it said that the British Prime Minister welcomed the constructive suggestions that other Prime Ministers made about Rhodesia, although it did not say what those suggestions were. Secondly, it said that the Prime Ministers took note of the development of a special Commonwealth programme for assisting the education of Rhodesian Africans. It is this note upon which we should build, because it could provide a basis for a new initiative and possibly a reconciliation between the Africans and the Europeans in Rhodesia.
If Britain could take the lead in persuading the other Commonwealth nations to put up substantial sums to help towards the more rapid development of African education and therefore economic advancement, it could lead to an advantage to the Europeans to the extent that if it was acceptable to Mr. Smith sanctions could be dropped, and, if it was acceptable to the Africans, they could have opportunities for more rapid advancement to majority rule. This is the only possible way to break out of this impasse.
The Rhodesian problem is one of the most explosive in the world today. We still have a tenuous responsibility, although no power. Most hon. Members will have read that moving book by Alan Paton, "Cry the Beloved Country". On the very last page, he referred to the fear of bondage and the bondage of fear. I still think that Great Britain has a duty to try to release the Africans from the fear of bondage and the Europeans from the bondage of fear.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Sanctions were first imposed on Rhodesia in November 1965, just eight years ago, and when we are asked to renew them for a ninth year it is appropriate to ask why they were put on in the first place. I never expected incidentally, to be speaking in a debate when under a Conservative Government, for the third year running, renewal of sanctions was sought. I find this disappointing.
Rhodesia was never governed from this country. It was first ruled by a chartered company. When that ended in 1923, it was given full self-government,


which it enjoyed until UDI and, of course, enjoys still. Independence was, therefore, a technical consideration which did not matter. It acquired its importance only when the United Nations Committee of 18, which came to be called the Committee on Anti-Colonialism, began to take an interest in Rhodesia.
The institution of that committee and its activities were described in terms of withering condemnation by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in two distinguished speeches to the United Nations Association, which caused a great stir at the time and with every word of which I would have agreed. That Committee made Rhodesia its first quarry, and that was when it became important that Rhodesia should have the technical independence of sovereignty, as distinct from the complete self rule that it had always enjoyed up till then.
This technical sovereignty was refused by British Government after British Government to Rhodesian Prime Minister after Rhodesian Prime Minister, in circumstances on which we must now look back with profound regret. Rhodesia is the only country in Africa which, of its own spontaneous movement, was developing a democracy based on a common rule and a society which politically, educationally and in every other way, was fully integrated.
Therefore, independence in that technical sense was not refused to Rhodesia by any British Government because they disapproved of what was happening there. Rhodesia was the model that we would have wished all Africa could follow. It was refused for one reason only—to avoid unpleasantness and difficulties with the Afro-Asian lobby in the United Nations.
It was not the Rhodesian Front that was refusing independence; it was Roy Welensky, Winston Field and people like him, and, even before that, Garfield Todd. This went on year after year, and the chase from the United Nations hotted up. Rhodesia asserted independence unilaterally in 1965. Then the sanctions were imposed by the Government of the day. At first they were mild sanctions, because the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) thought that

they would work very quickly and lead to a negotiated settlement which would give sovereign independence to Rhodesia.
Of course they did not work, in weeks, months or years and so they moved on in severity and the language sharpened. In May 1968 the fatal error was committed of going to the United Nations for mandatory sanctions—a step which I think that even the right hon. Gentleman who did it must quickly have regretted, because it limited his freedom of manoeuvre from that time on just as it has limited the freedom of manoeuvre of my right hon. Friend.
I have looked backwards to that extent because people now talk in the heightened atmosphere of these debates as though sanctions were imposed on Rhodesia and maintained upon some high ground of principle concerned with the relations between the different races in Africa. That is absolute humbug. There never was any such dispute originally. Sanctions were imposed because we did not give Rhodesia its independence, because we did not want a row in the United Nations, and because the British Government thought it did not matter very much. Rhodesia had full self government and had had it for as long as anyone could remember, and so why should it have sovereign independence—there was no basic difference—at the expense of unpleasantness with certain African nationalist politicians?
That is the fact of the matter, and as the eight years have drifted past it has become covered up because principles have proliferated in all directions. It was bad enough to have five principles to start with. The right hon. Member for Huyton added another, and made it six, and now we are told that in these fruitful negotiations going on in Central Africa another 12 have been enunciated, making a total of 18. The language has become virtually histrionic. This is one of the tragedies of modern history.
It is an unnecessary quarrel which has poisoned relations between us and the people of British stock in Central Africa. I ask myself now, as every other hon. Member must ask himself: what is to be done in this situation? We can look at it from the point of view of the laws and practices by which one nation recognises another. The hon. Member


for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) advocated a kind of gunboat diplomacy which reminded me of nothing so much as the pre-war militancy of the pacificist Labour Party we had in those days. We must not desist until we have crushed the rebellion, he said.
Some little time ago, I looked up the member States of the United Nations and found that about 30 per cent. of the Governments were based upon revolutions in the previous five years. We are talking about eight years for Rhodesia. The Government of which my right hon. Friend is a Member was based on a revolution if we go back to 1688, and I suppose that almost every Government in the world is so based. It is only a question of how far back we go. We do not have to go so far back with the United Nations.
Then it is said "Yes, but this is a rebellion against the Crown." The hon. Member for Islington, South-West said we should "settle their hash." I wondered how he would have settled the hash of the United States, which sprang from a rebellion against the Crown or, if we want to be more up-to-date, Sierra Leone, which two or three years ago staged a rebellion against the Crown and locked up the Queen's representative.
We did not turn a hair. Why? Because it was a coloured African country. That was the only difference. That is humbug.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has other arguments that I am sure he genuinely believes. He feels that sanctions help towards a settlement—that they press upon Rhodesia and will, therefore, influence a settlement.
There has been a good deal of talk tonight about the damage done to Rhodesia by sanctions. There has been some damage, naturally, but on balance sanctions have been beneficial to Rhodesia, in the same way as the limitation of the gold price by the United States for so many years was beneficial to South Africa, for it turned it into a major industrial country.
In eight years sanctions have turned Rhodesia from a monoculture into a considerable industrial and agricultural country. It has telescoped the advance of 30 years into eight. There is growing

up a considerable vested interest in sanctions in Rhodesia, so let us not fancy that they are some great burden upon the European population of Rhodesia that will force the result.
Then there is the other side of the argument—that if one removes sanctions after eight years that is itself a positive step, with an emotional reaction. I suppose that after eight years it is a positive step to take them off, but it will be more positive after nine years and more positive still after 10 years. That argument lives with one for ever. Are we to continue, year after year, maintaining sanctions on Rhodesia because no one can think of a way of taking them off?
Not claiming a great knowledge of Central Africa, but only some knowledge, I believe that the continuance of sanctions positively harms the prospect of agreement. It makes the African nationalist leaders—and I am thinking not of Bishop Muzorewa at the moment but of those with whom he has to cope—more militant, more aggressive and less compromising. They think Britain is behind them and breathing down the necks of the other side in negotiations, and that if they stick out they will be guaranteed, anyway. If sanctions were taken off, we would have an agreement in Rhodesia in a matter of months. We are totally mistaken in our political tactics, quite apart from the question of merit.
What about the other nations in Africa? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) slid away from this point very quickly. He was asked how many of those nations still had their constitutions. We did not give the Rhodesia her independence when the federation broke up. That was crazy. We gave it to the two backward elements, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, but, when we imposed sanctions on Rhodesia, Zambia—as it then was—and Malawi were already abandoning the West-minister constitutions which we had given them.
We imposed sanctions on Rhodesia for not accepting the sort of constitution that Zambia and Malawi were already abandoning. That seems very odd. I have tried for many years to come to terms with the situation and to find some rationality in it. I cannot see the rationality. Year after year I have made this


point in debate and in questions, or in other ways, to Ministers, asking what the difference is. They say that the difference is that our responsibility is to start these people off with a constitution providing for universal suffrage and the sort of institutions in which we believe.
What countries do after achieving independence is their business and not our responsibility. Suppose that the Rhodesians had been willing to go to Lancaster House or Marlborough House and to sign on the dotted line of one of the constitutions, had achieved their independence, and had then gone home and torn it up, and had an efficient dictatorship as in Malawi, a one-party State as in Zambia, or a sort of South American arrangement as in Sierre Leone. Any of those things would be perfectly all right, and all 18 principles would be vindicated. But if they say, "No", in this minor respect or that minor respect, or "We do not think that this would work in the 1960s or 1970s in Central Africa", do we then roll out the guns and smash them to bits? I find that preposterous and absurd. I opposed sanctions from the beginning, and it is with a good heart that I shall go into the Lobby against them tonight.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is important when debating Rhodesia to observe the situation as it is, and not to believe that it is as one would wish. I am inclined to take my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) out of isolation on these benches, although in doing so I would put the accent slightly differently.
If we are honest about the situation, what was said a year ago during our debates could not be said with equal conviction today. I hoped that during the course of the year we would have seen meaningful discussions between the Africans in Rhodesia and the Rhodesian Government. But little has taken place, as far as one can judge.
I was disturbed to see in the wake of the recent Rhodesian Front Party Congress a report in The Times of 24th September to the effect that, although Mr. Smith had said in his presidential address to the conference that he had been talking to African politicians, it emerged at a Press conference later that he had

been talking to African leaders on the basis of the 1969 Constitution.
Mr. Smith apparently denied that his Government were considering any changes in the 1969 Constitution. He said:
It simply means that when we talk to Africans we say we must now plan our future on the basis that we live under the 1969 Constitution.
This does not seem to bode any great hope for the future.
I do not think that tonight the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) could look at, in particular, columns 1323 and 1324 of HANSARD of 9th November 1972 and utter the words which he did then with the same ringing conviction, in light of what has happened during the last year.
I suppose that there are still some hopes, and my right hon. Friend has evinced them. They are somewhat fainter now, but it does not mean that they are not worth while or unworthy, and I should not wish to sweep them away. The first hope is that there can be sufficient effect from sanctions to continue to pressure Mr. Smith and his Government into meaningful negotiations with the Africans. That is the hope of the sanctions.
The second hope is that this may lead to a multi-racial solution in Rhodesia. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to the ideal of the multi-racial solution. Indeed, there were hopes that that could be achieved Rhodesia. I should have thought that was a sufficiently worth while ideal, and that one should continue to work towards it.
It is my judgment—and this is a matter on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and I disagree—that it is the maintenance of the sanctions which is more likely to get a meaningful solution, but I share his doubts about whether there can be any meaningful solution at all. The aim should be to maintain the sanctions.
Our motivation and concern is to do our best for the people of Rhodesia. Hon. Members who have spoken in contrary terms tonight are saying what they think is right for the people of Rhodesia, and that, too, is a worthy ideal.
We should also take British interests into consideration. But how does one interpret British interests? We might be invited to be decent to our kith and kin in Rhodesia, bearing in mind that people in that country have stood by us in the past in times of danger and conflict. But I have to ask myself whether the people in Rhodesia and those in charge of the Government who are meant by the phrase "kith and kin" share the ideals of a great number of us in this country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: They fought for them in the last war.

Mr. Haselhurst: I have already acknowledged the point made by my hon. Frend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from a sedentary position. The people of Rhodesia supported this country in the last war, and because of that feeling it is argued that we should take a more conciliatory attitude towards them today. But we can see what their attitude is towards the black people in their country.
It is interesting to be reminded by Mr. Des Frost, the Chairman of the Rhodesian Front Party, that the Rhodesia Front was formed in 1962 to stop the attempted handover of the country, and that remains the basic principle of the Rhodesian Front. Some of my hon. Friends may say "amen" to that, but it is not what I want to see happening in that country. It is not a view that I support.
One also asks, when mentioning kith and kin, whether the people running Rhodesia today truly are our kith and kin. The immigration figures and the kind of immigrant that Rhodesia has been having show that the nature of the white population in Rhodesia has been moving nearer and nearer towards that of South Africa, which is not necessarily closely related to us in origin.
I do not believe that the sympathies of the people who support the Rhodesian Front Government are headed towards any kind of multiracial solution. One's view on this matter must essentially rest upon on how one views the question of racial conflict.
I am still hopeful that it will be possible for black, white and brown to live together in harmony wherever they are in the world. However, if we are to endorse a solution which clearly accepts that white

should be in charge of black in perpetuity, I do not believe that that will add to the chances of a successful racial solution in other parts of the world.
Some of my hon. Friends argue, too, that it is in British economic interests to resume a normal relationship with Rhodesia. I find that difficult to follow, because the amount of trade that we were doing with Rhodesia when UDI was declared was about £40 million. I am not sure how much trade we would be able to gain from Rhodesia if normal trading relationships were resumed from tomorrow. I believe the amount would be minuscule. It would be considerably offset by the trade elsewhere in Africa that we gained in recent years.
Another argument has been put forward; namely, that we as a country are making ourselves look an ass over the matter of sanctions. None of us likes to find that he has been isolated in the way we appear to have been isolated, as the only country playing it straight. Others are clearly acting in their own interests and choosing to ignore sanctions.
I do not like this situation any more than do some of my hon. Friends, but it is not a question of describing the lifting of sanctions as a positive act and of arguing the matter dialectically. It is a matter of the reaction which would arise to the lifting of sanctions. That cannot be ignored.
If we were to decide in this House that it was right for Britain to lift sanctions, the correct way to do so would not be by refusing to pass this order tonight. There would have to be an approach to the United Nations for us to be relieved of our responsibility.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: My hon. Friend has dwelt on the morality of our use of an economic weapon in pursuit of political objectives against Rhodesia and on the possible consequences for us in that our trade with black Africa is more important than is our trade with Rhodesia. Will he expand that view and say a few words about his attitude towards the use by the Arabs of their oil as an economic weapon against us, and the morality of how we balance our trade with Israel?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman were to pursue that line of argument, he would be out of order.

Mr. Haselhurst: If my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) had been in the Chamber a little earlier, he might have heard that point discussed.
The other argument that is used about British interests is that we might be accused of adopting double standards. My answer to that argument is that our responsibility is at stake because we have a legal connection with and responsibility for Rhodesia. We must maintain our links with all our former colonies and dependencies and should not depart from our standards in the way we bring Rhodesia to independence. I believe that if we take that view we shall behave consistently.
I do not accept the particular way of defining British interests as I have heard them defined by others in this debate. I believe that British interests can best be summarised in this way. In economic terms we are trading more with the black African countries than we could ever have traded with Rhodesia, and our trade with black Africa is expanding at a faster rate than ever could have happened with Rhodesia. That trade is of great value to us.
I have some understanding of business in Africa, and I declare an interest. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that there is no substantial British economic interest in black Africa. That is not my experience of the motivations of British firms prepared to invest in black African countries. Surely they can be expected to know precisely what they are doing, and I believe that they understand it to be in the interests of British trade—and, in the final result, the proof lies in the figures, which clearly show that this trade is in our interests.
I also believe that, whether or not the value of our investments is declining—which is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon)—British companies are putting their money there, and they must be taking into account all the risks of so investing. I believe that they are doing this in a quite calculating way, understanding that they can get maximum value from those investments.
So I believe that the economic arguments are plainly in favour of our trad-

ing with black Africa, and we must accept that we put at risk some of that trade if we suddenly ditch our policy on sanctions against Rhodesia in return for some small trade from there. People may argue that we could call the bluff, but I just do not think we can take that risk. We have far too much at stake in the African countries to take that risk.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I have been following my hon. Friend's speech, and I understood that he castigated those who were breaching the sanctions regulations because they were putting their own interests first. Surely his whole speech suggesting that we should maintain sanctions is based upon the idea that it is in our interests to do so, and therefore he wishes us to put our own interests first.

Mr. Haselhurst: Yes, indeed I do. I believe that we must put our interests first, but we must also take into account how we are judged by other nations. Whether or not my hon. Friend likes it, the fact is that some countries attribute to us a higher standard in our dealings than they do to other countries. Certain other countries may get away with certain policies, because people say "That is what one would expect of those countries." But those countries with which we had a former relationship do not expect that behaviour of us, and are likely to react more bitterly and more sharply if we let them down in that way.
The second point that I wish to make in my defence of British interests is that, diplomatically speaking, we have to look not merely one, two or five years ahead but much further ahead than that. We shall have to live in a world in which the Asian and African countries, no doubt having suffered various constitutional traumas, will be major countries in the world with which we shall have to deal. I want to be on talking terms with those countries. I want this country to be influential with the third world, and I do not believe that we shall give much encouragement to the third world to deal with us if we appear to be aligning ourselves with a minority white régime in Southern Africa, which appears to be overriding its clear obligations. I believe that we should stand up for what we


believe to be right in relation to Rhodesia, and that will stand us in good stead in our diplomacy in the years ahead.
So, while I believe that the hopes to which we cling when we discuss the renewal of sanctions are fainter, I do not think they have been completely extinguished, and, because the price is not too high to achieve a multi-racial solution, we should make one further effort to try to work towards it. I believe that, on any reasonable analysis, it is in Britain's interests to maintain the sanctions. If hon. Members cannot be swept into the Lobby with any sense of burning idealism in support of sanctions tonight, I believe that a serious count of British interests should take all hon. Members into the Lobby in support of the Government tonight.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I want to vote, and, therefore, I shall be brief. I have always believed that sanctions do not work, never can work and, in the end, are nothing less than a counsel of despair. I also believe, having listened to the whole of this debate, that the force of argument has been entirely against the further imposition of sanctions. I am sorry to differ from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, for whom I have the greatest admiration, not least for how he has acted recently in the Arab-Israeli war, but I simply cannot follow him this time, as I have not previously for many years, down the primrose path to sanctions.
I had not intended earlier to take part in this debate, which I believe has become something of an annual bore, but this morning I was at a very large gathering of my constituents, and when I told them that I was coming here to listen to this debate and that I was going to vote against sanctions they said "We absolutely agree; why do you not speak for us?" I believe that I am speaking for many more people than just my constituents. I particularly ask hon. Members opposite whether they know or think about or care for the views of their constituents on this matter.
Every year we are led to expect that sanctions will be applied for the last time, and here we are proposing to apply them once more. I enjoyed very much, as I

always do, the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, in my view, is equally good on Ireland and on Africa. He said, what I believe is very true, that in continuing to impose sanctions we are giving way to some feeling in the United Nations and to black Africa.
I believe—and I say this with great regret as I see that my right hon. Friend has come into the Chamber again—that the Government have lost touch not only with the realities of power but with the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country. After all, what do people think? They cannot understand, for instance, why General Amin is allowed entirely to get away with it, while Mr. Smith alone is pilloried. Almost every African leader to whose country we have given freedom has torn up the constitution and substituted dictatorship of one-party rule, and often with very rigorous repression of minorities.
Rhodesia is more or less ahead of these black African States, and is certainly a far freer and happier country than South Africa. Surely we must admit that something worth while has been built up by the British and more recently by other European people in Rhodesia. Naturally, they are proud of their achievement. Amid the chaos and brutality around them in other African States, can we blame the Europeans if they say "What we have we hold, and when we give way we give way in our own time and in our own manner"?
The Government in Rhodesia are under attack by cruel and ruthless terrorists supported by Powers which we all know, are enemies of this country. I regret to say that by our sanctions we would appear to be aiding and abetting the aims of those vicious attacks. The Government still behave as if we once ruled Rhodesia from here, which we never did. Their legal case now looks doubtful. We have certainly given our trade rivals in other countries a field day and, to my mind worst of all, we have allowed the United Nations, if I may coin a phrase, to poke its unacceptable face into this tragedy.
I believe the time has come to end this piece of nonsense as quickly as possible and to take off sanctions before the position becomes utterly untenable. This


time last year many of my hon. Friends said that they would vote for sanctions for the last time. I hoped this time they will vote with the courage of their convictions.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I listened with care to the interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst). I hope that he will forgive me for saying that he was shooting at an enemy which is not there. No one regards Rhodesians as their kith and kin—at least I do not. I am no supporter of Mr. Smith. That is not the point at issue. What my hon. Friend was doing, although I am sure he did not mean to, was speaking as an imperialist. He is convinced that, as it did in the past, Great Britain controls Central Africa. That is the greatest illusion of all time. What matters is not whether the Government of Rhodesia are good or bad, any more than it matters whether the Norwegian Government are good or bad. What matters is that, for good reasons, we have not a single soldier or sailor from the Cape to Cairo. That is perfectly right, that is how it should be, but do not let us imagine that we are still an influential Power in Central Africa. We are not. That is the point my hon. Friend missed.
To support the re-imposition of sanctions tonight is to support something that is unlawful. Those who heard the then Sir Lionel Heald's speech of a few years ago will remember his eloquence and learning on this subject. The United Nations can impose sanctions only on a sovereign state which is a Member of the United Nations. The argument of the United Nations is that Rhodesia is not a sovereign State which is a member of the country to Great Britain. If that be so, then no sanctions under the United Nations Charter can lawfully be imposed.
It is clearly laid down in the United Nations Charter that any State that offends in a way in which it is suggested that Rhodesia has offended must have the right to appear before the United Nations and put its case. Rhodesia sought to appear, but consent was refused. So twice the United Nations has breached its own charter. I know the argument that the United Nations can breach its charter and do anything it likes, but

it is a rash argument to accept. What we propose to do tonight is unlawful within the meaning of international law, and I take that seriously.
There are those who believe that what we are doing tonight is moral. Believe me, there is no morality whatever in it. Not for one moment does the Foreign Office believe that. We must face the fact that we are being realist. In the General Assembly of the United Nations since 1965 there has been an Afro-Asian majority, now numbering 75 out of 135. Not long ago I spoke to a Foreign Office official in the United Nations, and I take the point that it can be argued that we must in no circumstances offend that majority. If there be a case for what is proposed tonight, that is the case, and no other. It is the case of reality in politics. I do not take that view. As recent months have shown, to take that view is to run grave risks. The Afro-Asian majority is as powerful in the cause against Israel as it is in the cause of Rhodesia.
We have a duty to the Afro-Asian nations, which I have never denied, to give them aid and to do all we can for them. We have no duty to be dominated by them, and that is the trap into which, with respect, my right hon. Friend has fallen. Not only in Rhodesia and Israel but in a dozen other instances as the years go by this policy, if pursued, can lead us and the whole of Europe into disaster. We should help these nations, we have an obligation to them—yes, yes and yes again—but it would be fatal to accept that we should be guided by them in policy.
I want to say something constructive. I fully understand our difficulties. I fully understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties in facing the United Nations—the fact that this was placed in the hands of the United Nations by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), and that, because it is in the hands of the United Nations, it is difficult for Britain unilaterally to withdraw.
But there is a way out of it. I earnestly suggest that we should go to the United Nations—not a difficult thing to do—and say "There are doubts about what ought to have been done but we have for nine years used sanctions in the hope of bringing about a solution. It is now abundantly clear that this method


has not been a success—that is indisputable. None the less, if it is the view of the United Nations that they should be continued, and if every member is willing jointly to see that they are continued, we will agree to participate, because clearly Britain alone, or almost alone, will not bear the heat and burden of the day while Japan and dozens of other nations, even African nations, are now breaching sanctions right, left and centre, and we cannot, in justice, equity or good sense be persuaded to go on alone."
That we can say, and say fairly. We can say that we do not wish to hurry the matter and that we can go on, if the United Nations wishes it, for another six months but that if in that time we still find ourselves alone, we shall not go on any further. That is not an illiberal thing to say, or unreasonable. It is something which could be said.
In the last three years we have heard my right hon. Friend on this side of the House with patience and admiration—and let me be careful here. My right hon. Friend never said, "This will be the last year", but again and again we have caught the inference that, "Perhaps, if we are lucky, this is likely to be the last year." It has always been untrue. I hope that this really is the last year. Perhaps my suggestion is not acceptable, for other solutions may be put forward. But it is practical, and I beg the Government to take note of the weight of opinion now behind them and which has been behind them for many years.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard: I hope that the House will allow me to say a few words in winding up the debate, although I am conscious that I opened it for the Opposition. In my defence, I should point out that one of the reasons I wish to speak again is that we thought it perhaps best to have only one speaker from the Opposition Front Bench, as, thereby speeches from the Labour benches may be somewhat shortened, as they have been.
In some ways this has been a vintage debate even for Rhodesian sanctions renewal order debates. But I seem to detect this year that the feeling displayed by hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, was deeper than it was last year and deeper than it has been for many

years past. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not sure that I should be grateful for that applause, although of course I welcome it.
The reason for this is perhaps that the real divide in principle becomes more apparent as the years go on. It is clear, as I said earlier, that there is no real division in principle between the policies being pursued by the present Government and the policies which the Labour Government were pursuing and which we would now advocate. I said, and repeat, that I believe that having a renewal of sanctions in this way each year is basically a farce and a charade, because most people in the House of Commons and in the country now agree that the proper policy towards Rhodesia is one in which we maintain sanctions, that by maintaining sanctions we thereby keep up the economic and international pressures on the present Government in Rhodesia, and as result we hope that some kind of political movement will take place there. If that is right—and anyone who sat through this debate tonight will agree that the views expressed here, while they may represent a certain view in the Conservative Party, cannot be said to be fairly representative of the House as a whole or of the views in the country as a whole—[Interruption.] I do not mind being howled at by people who have been here throughout the debate, but I do object to being howled at by someone who has just rolled in.
If my general point is correct, namely, that there is a broad consensus on this issue between the two Front Benches and the two parties and throughout the country, it is understandable that, as the years have gone on and hon. Members below the Gangway have advanced their views with great sincerity—the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and I crossed swords on Rhodesia in November 1965 and have expressed the same views, although I hope not in the same terms, since then—the divide should have become clearer in the Tory Party, the views more deeply held and perhaps more bitter.
What I beg hon. Members to consider for a moment is not just the effect that sanctions may be having in Rhodesia but what the effect would be on our international standing if sanctions were now to be removed. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King)


recently spent some time at the United Nations and it is noteworthy that, having done so, he did not join in the general condemnation of that organisation in which some of his hon. Friends were prone to indulge this evening.
Can anyone doubt that if we were now to remove sanctions against Rhodesia the effect on Britain's position in relation to other African and Asian countries, and, indeed, some of our closest allies within the Atlantic alliance, would be seriously damaged?
Have hon. Members considered the effect on our relationship with the United States? The Byrd Amendment is being considered by Congress. The administration this year, unlike last year, have seriously campaigned for the abolition of that amendment. If Congress does what it is anticipated it will do over that amendment, we shall find ourselves in two or three weeks in the most extraordinary situation—the United States reimposing a sanction in relation to chrome precisely when the United Kingdom, by a vote of the House of Commons, was removing general sanctions. We should be in a ludicrous position.
The evidence now is overwhelming that sanctions are justifiable both in relation to their effect within Rhodesia—economically, it makes sense for us to continue them—and also in relation to our international standing. If we did as hon. Members opposite wish us to do we should be putting ourselves on the wrong side of the racial confrontation which is taking place in southern Africa.

10.25 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): This is the eighth time that we have debated the renewal of sanctions. On the whole there have been the same speakers developing the same arguments year after year. As always in these debates, there have been hard words spoken, and there have been constructive speeches. I apologise in that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce). Whatever views have been expressed, they have always been deeply felt and spoken with great sincerity. I am afraid that because the same speeches have been made year after year the House

will have to hear some of the same arguments in reply.
The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) argued in his opening speech, and repeated it a moment ago, that we should take powers to avoid this annual debate. I see his argument, that it would be convenient for Governments to take such powers. But the imposition of sanctions on a dependent territory is a serious matter indeed. It is not right to sweep it under the carpet and allow it to be forgotten by the House. It is valuable to examine the actualities of what is happening in Rhodesia. It is valuable, too, that the House should have the opportunity of noting any changes that have taken place. The fact that so many hon. Members have spoken and expressed such strongly-held views and should have the opportunity of recording their vote is of real value in a democratic society, and I am not sure that it is something I would remove in present circumstances.
As I said, it is the eighth time that we have had to debate the renewal of sanctions. It is natural that there is great frustration and disappointment in every section of the House that we have to debate this again. Such disappointment means that we have had to examine very carefully once more the argument for and against renewal, but we cannot allow our natural frustration to take the place of judgment in debate.
Because of recent developments in Rhodesia, which my right hon. Friend described in opening the debate, it would be quite wrong for us simply to turn aside from the problem at this time and say that it is too difficult to solve. Although he is not here, I will refer to the hard words spoken by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He used the hardest words of all when he said that Governments of both parties, and our society, were imbued with decadent appeasement. What has happened is that British Governments have asserted their responsibility for several millions of black Africans, and although our power on the ground is limited—

Mr. Ronald Bell: Hear, hear.

Lord Balniel: —we have from year to year re-asserted our responsibility. What


the hon. and learned Gentleman implied was that we had given in to the pressures of Black Africa. What he was saying was that we should surrender to Mr. Smith, give up, wash our hands of it and surrender any hope of reaching a multi-racial society.
I will try to deal briefly with some of the questions that have been raised. I feel I must make one general point. The fact that sanctions have now continued for some time in no way means that we feel that they should automatically be continued. They should be re-examined in the present circumstances. But the question we have to ask is not whether it was right to impose sanctions for the first time but whether lifting then, now without a settlement—with all the emotional and political difficulties and consequences that would flow from that decision—will contribute to the talks between the parties concerned and the restoration of legal government.
We have to ask whether any alternative put forward is more likely to result in the restoration of legal government or is more likely to assist the talks that have begun inside Rhodesia. Many hon. Members have expressed doubts as to whether those talks will get anywhere. Many have been sceptical, and maybe they are right. No one can prophesy. Undoubtedly the situation is changing in Rhodesia, surely when, for the first time, talks are taking place, it is not the right time to give up. I understand the strength of the arguments involved but I rather doubted the logical position adopted in his interesting and knowledgeable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who said that if he were Foreign Secretary he would probably introduce the order but, since he is a back-bencher, he will vote against it.

Mr. Wall: The point was that the Foreign Secretary must do what he thinks right. My contention was that Conservative leaders should never have got us into this situation, and I gave three examples of how this could have been avoided.

Lord Balniel: Those words are better addressed to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches than to the Government.
Many of my hon. Friends have argued that it is right to withdraw sanctions now without having achieved a settlement. The arguments that these have developed have been broadly along the lines that sanctions have not worked effectively and that they have hit hardest at the Africans It is also argued that we are losing, and have lost, the Rhodesian market to less scrupulous commercial rivals. I understand the feelings of those who advance these arguments. They have considerable force but they are only part of the picture. We all know that sanctions have not been as effective as those who began them claimed they would be. They will not force a political settlement but they do have an effect. This is particularly the case in relation to Rhodesia's foreign exchange and capital position. This and the inability to obtain international recognition.

Sir Gilbert Longden: On the question of foreign exchange, though sanctions have to continue, which I accept on balance, I should like my right hon. Friends to give some attention to the plight of two groups of quite innocent people. These are the British subjects who went to Rhodesia to retire long before UDI and cannot get their money out of England. They are not supporters of the Smith régime. The second group are those people who were sold Southern Rhodesia stock and cannot now get either their capital or their interest. I beg my right hon. Friends to give consideration to these two groups. They could be helped without damaging the sanctions policy.

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend has raised two specific issues which it is impossible for me to comment on in detail straight away. Where there are humanitarian reasons for trying to ease the impact of sanctions, which we can do, we certainly will do so. I will consider the two specific points raised by my hon. Friend.
The shortage of foreign exchange is a factor, not a compelling one I agree, which has led to the holding of talks which have recently taken place in Rhodesia. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) and other hon. Members pointed out in urging the lifting of sanctions that Africans were being hardest hit. They said that Africans


leaving school found it difficult to get jobs; their housing and education programmes were being delayed. That is probably all true. But we must not forget what the Pearce Commission said about the African response to sanctions. It said:
Sanctions might affect the Africans more seriously than the Europeans, but this was the price (the Africans) were ready to pay.
If one were to remove sanctions today without a settlement the prospect of getting an inter-racial agreement within Rhodesia would completely disappear. The moderates who are talking would be swept aside by the extremists.
The third leg of the argument concerns Britain's trading interest. Here it is possible to develop totally contradictory arguments as did the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. I am not using this as an argument for the maintenance of the status quo, but it is a fact that our trade with Rhodesia, if sanctions were lifted, would be a very small element by comparison with the £1,500 million of trade we do every year with Africa south of the Sahara.
Our overall trade in Africa is a consideration which we must all weigh up very carefully when we speak in terms of Britain's trading interest. It is not only with Rhodesia or only with South Africa: it is with a multitude of sovereign countries in Africa.
The more general argument of those who would like to see sanctions lifted is that they are actually driving the community, especially the Europeans, into more extreme intransigent attitudes. I think that the decisive argument for maintaining the status quo is to look at what is happening on the ground in Rhodesia, and it is not a picture of the two communities becoming more extreme. It is true that there is terrorism and extremism, but the main political parties are now involved in talks.
For the first time there have been discussions between Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa, the leader of the African National Council. It may seem

a very small step towards a satisfactory settlement, but it is a step in the direction of conciliation and moderation.
It may be true that there are some people who, out of a sense of defiance and feeling isolated, have become more extreme. But if we were to end sanctions now, with the talks going on but with no settlement reached, we should turn our backs on those who are working hardest for a settlement. It is from these people in Rhodesia that agreement must come—

Mr. Hastings: May we have some precision here? How long have these talks been going on, who has been taking part in them, and what evidence is there of progress?

Lord Balniel: The talks are taking place between the African National Council and the Rhodesian Front, and they have been taking place during the past year. Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa met in July, and the talks have been going on within the parties since then. Only last month, for example, the African National Council issued a unanimous statement saying that it wished these talks to continue. There have also been talks at other levels—for example, between the African National Council and the Rhodesia Party. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary pointed out, they have reached agreement on 12 principles for a multiracial society which they wish to see established in Rhodesia.
My point is that if we were to drop sanctions in breach of our international obligations under the United Nations Charter the control of events would almost certainly be swept out of the hands of moderate Africans and Europeans. While talks were still going on, and before a settlement had been reached, there would be such an emotional reaction in Rhodesia and outside that any hope of a settlement would be swept away.
For those briefly deployed but, I hope cogent reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends and the House as a whole to support the order.

Question put:—

Question accordingly agreed to.


Resolved,


That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 26.

Division No. 5.
AYES
[10.40 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grylls, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Austick, David
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Redmond, Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Haselhurst, Alan
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hatton, F.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Benyon, W.
Havers, Sir Michael
Richard, Ivor


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hicks, Robert
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Booth, Albert
Higgins, Terence L.
Roper, John


Bray, Ronald
Hooson, Emlyn
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Scott, Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Simeons, Charles


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Chapman, Sydney
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kaufman, Gerald
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Concannon, J. D.
Lamont, Norman
Steel, David


Costain, A. P.
Lawson, George
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Critchley, Julian
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sutcliffe, John


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Loveridge, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Dean, Paul
Luce, R. N.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Torney, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCrindle, R. A.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Ellis, Tom
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Emery, Peter
Milne, Edward
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Money, Ernle
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Fidler, Michael
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Nott, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Onslow, Cranley
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Fowler, Norman
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Younger, Hn. George


Fox, Marcus
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)



Gibson-Watt, David
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Hamish Gray and


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis.


Green, Alan
Prescott, John





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Stokes, John


Bell, Ronald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
Rost, Peter



Drayson, G. B.
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fell, Anthony
Soref, Harold
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Mr. Stephen Hastings.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer; and of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, Cable and Wireless Limited, and Horserace Totalisator Board, and to examine such activities of the Bank of England as are not—

(1) activities in the formulation and execution of monetary and financial policy, including responsibilities for the management of the gilt-edged, money and foreign exchange markets;
(2) activities, as agents of the Treasury, in managing the Exchange Equalisation Account and administering Exchange Control; or
(3) activities as a banker to other banks and private customers.

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Fourteen Members.
And the Committee was nominated of Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Jack Dormand, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Green, Sir John Hall, Mr. Brynmor John, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Robert Redmond, Mr. Stewart-Smith, and Mr. David Stoddart.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to adjourn from place to place.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-committe.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time any Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-committees.

Ordered,
That the Minutes of Evidence reported to the House by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That the Lords Message [6th November] relating to the Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c.. Bills be now considered.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

The Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills was nominated of Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. John Smith, Mr. David Waddington, Mr. William Wells, Mr. Jerry Wiggin, and Mr. William Wilson.

Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with the Order necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That the Lords Message 6th November relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider:—

(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which


proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;
(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;
(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or
(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure.


(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment;
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period:
(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;
(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;
(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;
(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case:—And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. Edward Gardner, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Ernie Money, Mr. Ronald King Murray, and Mr. David Waddington.

Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-committees severally to join with any Sub-committee or Sub-committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Lords; and to refer to such Sub-committee or Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to repot from time to time, and that any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to sit notwithstanding and adjournment of the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any instrument which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such instrument.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any instrument.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memorandum submitted to them or other evidence taken before them or any Sub-committee appointed by them from any Government department in explanation of any instrument.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-committee appointed by them such explanations as the department think fit.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in this House only, being—

(a) statutory instruments, or drafts of statutory instruments;
(b) schemes, or amendments of schemes, or drafts thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or


(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution;

and that they have power to draw such instruments to the special attention of the House on any of the grounds on which the Joint Committee are empowered so to draw the special attention of the House; and that in considering any such instrument the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkin.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS

10.56 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I shall not detain the House too long this evening on a matter which affects my constituency, but it is a matter which is very important to my constituents since it relates to compulsory purchase orders. These compulsory purchase orders are being made in Northwood, Ruislip and in other places.
I believe that local government should be local. We are a new borough but we do not begin to be "local" because people in Hayes and in the outskirts of Ruislip have not the same ideas and feelings as those who live in Northwood.
I am sorry to have to bring this matter before Parliament, since it is a matter which is a particularly local issue, but I have been into the subject very carefully and have been enjoined by many people to give the matter an airing in Parliament on the basis that the spirit of the Act is not being put into effect by the local council. To give an illustration of the feelings that exist in my area on this subject, a lady in my constituency told me the other day that when she received one of these compulsory purchase orders through the post, she literally shook from head to foot.
Great unhappiness and distress has been caused to a section of my con-

stituency by an absolutely callous local council. I say, as a Member of Parliament, that this is something I will not stand for, and that is why I bring this matter to the attention of the House.
The Act was designed on the basis that local councils were responsible bodies, but when one comes across a council which acts utterly irresponsibly, and which takes an extreme view—I do not wish to bring in politics here, but it is difficult not to do so—there comes a moment of time when a Member of Parliament has to come to the House and say so.
I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. First, how can an owner-occupier defend his land against a council that possesses compulsory purchase powers? Secondly, what action can residents take to avoid the destruction of their environment in relation to the Act? It may be that, thanks to the irresponsibility of the council in whose area my constituents reside, we shall eventually have to amend the Act.
What action can an owner-occupier take if a compulsory purchase order affecting his property is made? Can anything be done to reduce the time taken—and this is very important—to take a decision on compulsory purchase orders? It is the waiting that is such a problem. My constituents are very upset about this matter, and that is why I raise it in the House. I understand that compulsory purchase orders on housing require the confirmation of the Secretary of State in every case—I think under Sections 38 and 39 of the Act. Should not a similar procedure apply to planning applications in respect of a local authority's own schemes? I do not like to bring local matters before the House of Commons, but when I see an Act being misused and misinterpreted in this way I feel that I have a duty to do so.

10.51 p.m.

Sir Gilbert Longden: I shall not delay my hon. Friend's reply a second longer than I need, because I am very anxious to hear his answers to the extremely pertinent questions which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowther) put to him. I intervene merely to say that my constituents are close neighbours of my hon. Friend's,


and these compulsory purchase orders will very grievously affect them and the value of their properties and the whole character of the place in which they live. They are grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he is doing and I strongly support all that he said.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am very grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in this debate, because my constituency of Uxbridge is immediately adjoining the constituency represented by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder).
My constituents, too, are suffering from the policies which are being pursued by the London Borough of Hillingdon. Like many other London boroughs, Hillingdon has a long housing waiting list and it must therefore pursue energetic policies if it is to solve its housing problems. But I believe that these policies should be such as would command the support of all the community. The council is doing much that is worthy of support. It is providing easy and quick mortgages and it is building houses for sale as well as for letting, and these are proper policies for a local authority to pursue. But, unhappily, the council is making what I regard as excessive use of the power of compulsory purchase as a general instrument of housing policy.
The position is that between 1st January 1972 and 12th October 1973 34 compulsory purchase orders have been made. I have been reading the Statute this evening, and I find that the compulsory purchase powers which were originally granted by Parliament under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation of Procedure) Act 1946 were designed to provide an instrument to help rebuild our cities and rehouse our people after the Second World War. I believe that the excessive use of these powers in 1973 is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of my constituents, in the same way as it is unacceptable to the constituents represented by my hon. Friends. Many of my constituents feel that their homes or land may be suddenly and compulsorily acquired without their consent.
Before I came to this House, I spent 12 years in local government as a councillor in two London boroughs whose housing problems were as severe as—perhaps more severe than—those of Hillingdon. But during that period the compulsory purchase powers were sparingly used, and were used only when some development of very important local or national interest was involved. I believe that that is how compulsory purchase powers should be used. I am quite sure that they are not intended to be used as a massive blunderbuss to acquire almost every piece of land that comes on to the market, or to acquire the homes and businesses of my constituents without their consent.
It is not only the number of compulsory purchase orders involved that is causing concern; it is also the brutal approach made to owners to purchase their properties on the basis that if they do not do so, a compulsory purchase order will be issued.
Concurrently with this policy, my local authority is proposing to purchase up to 500 miscellaneous properties on the open market at a capital cost of over £7· million. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give me some assurance that if these properties cannot be acquired on the open market he will not look with favour on the use of compulsory purchase.
It also seems to be the policy of Hillingdon Council to drive out of the borough the local private developers whose contribution to the housing target plays an essential part in the building of a balanced and happy community. Developers in Hillingdon, some of whom have been building houses there for more than 150 years, find that if they assemble a parcel of land for building it is acquired by the local authority for municipal housing. If the developer refuses to sell, he has to wait a year or more before my right hon. Friend is able to decide whether he will confirm a compulsory purchase order. Few developers can afford to wait so long with their money tied up in land at today's prices. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will say that he will discourage wholesale acquisition of land from private developers and will speed up the consideration of compulsory purchase orders.
I hope that this short debate has drawn attention to a very serious local situation in my constituency which is causing much fear, bitterness and division amongst local residents.

11.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) for raising this important subject and I will certainly do my best to answer the questions which he has raised. I have also noted carefully the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden).
I am well aware of the controversy in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend over the London borough of Hillingdon's proposals to acquire and redevelop a number of residential sites in Northwood and elsewhere, and I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to say something in general terms about the use of compulsory purchase powers and the safeguards provided by the legislation, with special reference to London housing.
My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friends who have taken part in this debate will appreciate that because of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial position in relation to planning and compulsory purchase procedures, I cannot comment in any way on individual cases. But perhaps I should start by sketching in the background of the London housing scene against which decisions on these matters have to be taken.
The House does not need to be reminded that we are faced in London with a very serious and urgent housing situation, reflected in an overall shortage of dwellings, an ageing and deteriorating housing stock, overcrowding, poor housing conditions and homelessness.
The largest and worst London housing problems are to be found within the inner London area, where the authorities cannot possibly meet all their need from within their own areas. They must look outside London and to the outer London boroughs for some assistance, either directly or through the strategic activities of the Greater London Council, and, of course, we expect that a lot of new housing land will be found in the dockland.
It is up to each London borough to work out a housing strategy in terms of its own local needs and circumstances, but the Government ask all boroughs to ensure that they make the best possible use of available resources and, in the case of the outer London boroughs, that they do what they can to help inner London.
How they arrange this is entirely a matter for them, subject of course to any necessary statutory, financial or other approvals. Housing is essentially a local matter, to be dealt with by democratically elected local authorities, within a broad framework of policy laid down by the Government and incorporated in legislation sanctioned by Parliament.
The methods available to a London borough when planning its housing strategy include, for example, the provision of local authority building to rent or for sale; assistance to housing associations; and encouraging the private sector to provide dwellings of the right type and within the right price range. Local authorities, housing associations and the private sector can also work to secure the improvement and conversion of existing dwellings; to ensure that much needed empty dwellings are brought back into use as soon as is reasonably possible; and to see that an adequate supply of existing rented accommodation is retained within the borough.
When there is such a diverse range of policies and activities to choose from, I would hope that all the London housing authorities, whatever their circumstances and political persuasion, will continue to co-operate in a team effort to deal with London's housing problems as a whole.
The Action Group on London Housing, in its Third Interim Report, identified additional land for 24,400 dwellings in 1972–81 as firmly available in Greater London, but this still leaves land for a further 16,000 dwellings to be firmly identified, if the impetus of the drive to eliminate London's housing shortage is to be maintained during this period.
The action group and the Department are continuing their efforts to close the gap, but in this sort of situation it is clearly imperative that the best possible use should be made of the land which has already been identified. One important factor in this concerns the density at


which sites are developed, and perhaps I might refer here to Circular 122/73 addressed to local authorities, which pointed out that while the Government do not favour very high densities, a consequence of developing land at very low densities could be to release for housing a needlessly large amount of land which is well suited to its existing use.
Subject to the Greater London Council's strategic planning responsibilities, the House will appreciate that each of the London boroughs is the planning authority in its own area. Where a proposal does not involve a substantial departure from the initial development plan, the borough can, in the first instance, determine the application itself in consultation as necessary with the GLC. This is of course based on the fact that the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, or his predecessor, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, was given to the development plan's provisions; their detailed implementation, whether by private or public agency, almost invariably involves only local issues.
Where, on the other hand, both the borough council and the GLC wish to allow development which involves a substantial departure from the plan—such as housing in the Green Belt—the application has to be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend. If any such application, or, indeed, one which accords with the plan, raises issues which are of more than local importance, my right hon. and learned Friend can use his reserve power to call it in for his own decision. But I must emphasise that he uses this power only exceptionally since he is most anxious that the local planning authorities, who again are democratically elected bodies, should be, and be seen to be, responsible and accountable to their electorate for the day-to-day administration of planning control in their areas.
These procedures apply to proposals for private development and for development by the local planning authorities themselves.
If a would-be developer, whether a private builder or a local authority, does not own the land covered by an application for planning permission, notice of the proposals must be served on the owner and he has an opportunity to make

his views known to the local planning authority before it determines the application. Where a substantial departure from the development plan is involved, the proposals must also be advertised in the local Press, and objections can be made to the authority. Apart from this and a few other limited categories where there is a statutory requirement to advertise proposals for development, publicity is a matter for the local planning authorities.
My right hon. and learned Friend issued a circular in June last—No. 71/73—encouraging authorities to give publicity to the more important applications where the general public interest is involved, and they were also asked to give publicity to their own development proposals similar to that for private development proposals. Once planning permission is granted either to a private developer or to a local planning authority for its own development there is no right of appeal by the landowner or nearby residents against that permission. But any landowner can of course refuse to sell his land to a would-be developer, including a local authority, and it can only be taken from him if a compulsory purchase order is made and confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Where a local authority has a housing need and proposes to acquire land compulsorily for housing purposes, it can proceed under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 to make a compulsory purchase order and submit it for the Secretary of State's consideration. I must emphasise that the making of such an order, or, indeed, a whole series of orders, is entirely a matter for the local authority—the democratically elected body to which I have referred. But its order will have no legal effect unless it is confirmed by the Secretary of State, and such confirmation will be forthcoming only where my right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that this is in the public interest.
Before submitting a compulsory purchase order to the Secretary of State, an authority is required under the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 to serve notices of the making of the order on all owners, lessees and occupiers—except tenants for a month or less—stating that objections may be sent within a specified period of not less than 21 days to the Secretary of State. The


authority also has to advertise the making of the order in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers.
The Department has urged authorities, in Circular 91/72, to set out at the time their reasons for wishing to resort to compulsory purchase and to supply any other information which may be sought by persons affected where appropriate, for example, the authority's proposals for rehousing occupants who would be displaced if the order were confirmed.
There are, of course, other ways open to a local authority, such as public meetings, exhibitions and so on, to explain to its electorate the background to any proposals involving compulsory purchase. Here I note particularly the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) arising from his local government experience.
If anyone is approached by a local authority, or, indeed, by any other public body possessing compulsory purchase powers, with an invitation to sell his land, or some part of it, by agreement, and he finds the reasons for the proposed acquisition unconvincing, he need not feel under any obligation to sell.
If the authority seeks compulsory powers and there are objections to its order by people with a legal interest in the land concerned, which are not withdrawn, the Secretary of State will hold a public local inquiry, and will have regard to the arguments put forward by the parties in addition to the inspector's conclusions and recommendation, before deciding whether to confirm the order. It is therefore up to those whose land is

included in the order to register their objections and to appear or be represented at the inquiry.
My hon. and learned Friend made reference to delays with compulsory purchase orders. The Department is very conscious of the understandable anxieties felt by those affected and is making every effort to recruit additional housing inspectors and to speed up both the holding of public inquiries into compulsory purchase orders and the subsequent decision processes.
It is always difficult to hold the balance between the rights of the private citizen and the broader interests of the community, but I hope that the debate has shown that the statutory procedures governing the use of compulsory purchase powers by local authorities incorporate substantial safeguards.

Mr. Crowder: It seems a bit unfair that, when there is the whole weight of the ratepayers' money and a local council in a public inquiry, legal aid should not be made available as it is in many other instances—as no one knows better than I—because in the face of such immense resources it is very hard for the individual.

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the validity of that point but it is not possible for me, as my hon. and learned Friend will understand, to deal satisfactorily with it now. But I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.